tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4216119912208629850..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The road from libertarianismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64165786874892282942023-07-14T02:21:19.711-07:002023-07-14T02:21:19.711-07:00Very interesting.Very interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30077791230220002742018-11-14T23:15:21.078-08:002018-11-14T23:15:21.078-08:00thanksthanksAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923286922944089104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30678503111196121162014-08-07T10:26:20.547-07:002014-08-07T10:26:20.547-07:00If extinction is a bad thing, and I think it is, s...If extinction is a bad thing, and I think it is, society or the state trumps the individual, since the individual cannot reproduce himself or another. Since society has power over your life, the most important aspect, it also has power over lesser aspects such as freedom. This whole principle relies on the society being perfect. Since societies are imperfect, individuals have certain rights to protect themselves from the imperfections of society. When the rights and imperfections are balanced, there is harmony. When there is imbalance, we have either anarchy or tyranny. Society has an obligation to subjugate the anarchists, and individuals have the obligation to subjugate the tyrants.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297813284866407364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47297579098095408992014-05-20T10:13:55.269-07:002014-05-20T10:13:55.269-07:00You say: "Leo’s teaching, and the emphasis in...You say: "Leo’s teaching, and the emphasis in Catholic social teaching generally on subsidiarity, should make us think twice about whether all matters of justice are best dealt with via the blunt instruments of state power."<br /><br />How would giving the state full power over the distribution of wealth be against Catholic social teaching?<br /><br />thanksGeremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41619628760507729342013-03-01T02:09:42.487-08:002013-03-01T02:09:42.487-08:00Thanks for the article.
I think you need to revi...Thanks for the article. <br /><br />I think you need to revisit actual Libertarianism. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues worldwide, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ....Robert Richardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44147710641292656282012-09-08T20:33:26.294-07:002012-09-08T20:33:26.294-07:00OK, Nick, thanks.OK, Nick, thanks.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24716437441526601372012-09-08T14:58:07.209-07:002012-09-08T14:58:07.209-07:00I will try to be more careful with my wording in t...I will try to be more careful with my wording in the future. I never intended to insinuate you or Josh were heretics, but rather that the ideology of Conservatism is erroneous. I actually enjoyed your deconstruction and refutation of Libertarianism and simply thought that it should be taken one step further.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37877293376454046552012-09-08T13:09:49.719-07:002012-09-08T13:09:49.719-07:00Your first sentence lacks the needed precision to ...<i>Your first sentence lacks the needed precision to understand my point.</i><br /><br />My first sentence lacked precision intentionally, because it was (obviously) meant as sarcasm.<br /><br />Nor ought someone who uses the term "heresy" as loosely as you do, and ignores the nuances in the term "conservative," to accuse others of a lack of "precision"!<br /><br />If you had simply said "Some ideas that are defended by some self-described 'conservatives' cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching," <i>that</i> would have been precise and reasonable, and we would not be having this discussion.<br /><br />Instead, you initially described "conservatism," without qualification, as a "heresy," and insinuated that I was a heretic merely because I had in passing described myself as "conservative." That is imprecise in the extreme. And unjust. <br /><br />If you don't want trouble, don't make trouble.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16673202387911938822012-09-08T11:34:46.692-07:002012-09-08T11:34:46.692-07:00Hello Edward,
Your first sentence lacks the need...Hello Edward, <br /><br />Your first sentence lacks the needed precision to understand my point. I could just as easily state your position as "So, 'being gay' is a 'sin' except when it's 'fine'." That's equivocation. Being "gay" is only fine if "gay" is meant "cheerful", otherwise if it refers to homosexuality then it's a sin, never 'fine'. And while homosexuality has been historically condemned by the Church, you wont find Popes using the relatively modern use of "gay" to refer to homosexuality. Now carry this over to what I'm saying about Conservatism.<br /><br />The principles I stated relating to Conservatism are indeed condemned in formal propositions by the Church. I'm sure you would agree that the concepts being condemned are more important than whether the term "Conservationism" is actually used. After all, the term has morphed from what used to be understood by all as the ideology of (big-L) Liberalism. I want to strongly emphasize that this is not me pontificating, but rather calling attention to very specific teachings of Papal Encyclicals. <br /><br />For example, look at what Leo XIII said in an encyclical dedicated to the true and false concepts of liberty: <br /><br />"<b>There are others [those we'd consider "Conservatives" today], somewhat more moderate though not more consistent [than Liberal-Liberals], who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest.</b> (Libertas, 18)"<br /><br />Here Pope Leo is talking about Liberals who are "more moderate" but "not more [logically] consistent" than other Liberals. So he has signified a specific sub-class of Liberals here, from which the modern Liberal vs Conservative distinction flows. This is precisely where the idea of "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I won't push my views on others" comes from. And this is precisely why Protestants have historically been terrified of any Catholics being elected, especially to the seat of President, because the Protestants know full well that a genuine Catholic President would have to exercise his office according to the mind of the Church. <br /><br />My simple question to you (and anyone who wants to answer) is: <b>Do you believe that the voter/legislature (especially Catholic) must formally take into consideration specific moral teachings of the Church when it comes to any given legislation?</b> Let's use the example of pornography. Would you as a Catholic legislature formally oppose it on the grounds that it is condemned in the Catechism, or would you not mention the Church at all and try to come up with another reason to oppose it? (Surely someone as informed as you wouldn't say that you must regretfully allow pornography on the basis that man is "free" to publish whatever he wants.) <br /><br />Note: I'm not trying to create enemies with either you or Josh. I think that thinking about these issues will bring Catholics to the 'next level' intellectually of where they should be, and I say this as one who used to be oblivious to the richness of such Church teachings.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75463883204993470662012-09-07T18:06:17.810-07:002012-09-07T18:06:17.810-07:00So, "conservatism" is a "heresy&quo...So, "conservatism" is a "heresy" except when it is "fine."<br /><br />Perhaps, Nick, you should draw the obvious lesson from the qualification you just had to make: that the term "conservative" has a wide range of uses, so that one ought to be cautious before making all sorts of accusations against those who use it (especially in a blog post devoted to another subject). And that is, of course, one reason you won't find "conservatism" on any list of heresies condemned by the Church. (Lists drawn up by anonymous guys in comboxes don't count.)<br /><br />Charity and attention to well-known variations in usage are not as much fun as pontificating, I know, but there it is.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1342951440193598522012-09-07T16:48:39.047-07:002012-09-07T16:48:39.047-07:00Hello Josh,
There is a 'generic' type of...Hello Josh, <br /><br />There is a 'generic' type of conservative and an 'ideological' sense of conservative, just as there is a 'generic' type of liberal (e.g. one who is generous) and 'ideological' liberal (i.e. one who is a Progressive). <br /><br />The generic type of conservative is one who, as a matter of preference, likes to preserve any given sociological custom. This is fine. On the other hand, the ideological (big-C) Conservative is that which espouses the heresy of Separation of Church & State, particularly in the realm of 'privatizing' one's morality/religion. This is the crowd that says "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I wont force my beliefs on others." The ideological (heretical) type is big-c Conservative, which is what 95% of Americans are. <br /><br />To get a better understanding of this, one must step back and understand the heresy of Classical Liberalism (not the modern notion of "Liberal"). The so-called "Enlightenment" was founded upon the Libertarian notion that man is autonomous in every sense, particularly in matters of conscience. This was termed "liberalism" because it meant "to liberate, to free" from the "chains" of Christendom. In this new ideology, man was not bound to any authority, especially religious (including rejecting the divine "authority" of the Bible itself). This was the natural development of Protestantism, since what began as "liberating" oneself from the Church to be Christian however one pleased naturally devolved into "liberating" oneself from anything opposing you from doing whatever pleases you. With this error implanted in men's minds, this meant that public morals (or even legislation in general) had to be based upon something other than any objective Truth (be it Natural Law or Divine Law). This is why Classical Liberalism can be summed up as the heresy of Separation of Church & State.<br /><br />Now among Classical Liberals, there were two sorts. The Liberal-Liberals were the minority who saw life in a purely Anostic-Utilitarian fashion, in which there was no sense of morality whatsoever. The Conservative-Liberals were the super-majority who held that man's private life should be guided by some kind of morality, including Christianity, but that (being a personal preference) could not be imposed on Society at large. So a Conservative Christian legislature can NEVER stand up in congress and oppose abortion on basis that it's "sinful". When it comes to laws, there is no such thing as "sinful," only 'legal' and 'illegal'. This is why Conservative Christians can never oppose pornography, but rather must positively protect this 'right' for others. <br /><br />This description probably gave you a head-ache, and probably made you somewhat irritated, but let's apply what I just said to the definition you gave. The "Conservative" you described is someone wanting to oppose RADICAL changes. Now if you stop and think about it, this is not different in *principle* to someone opposed to change at any different degree. So any change is fine, just as long as it doesn't come about 'radically'. Notice the problem here: the notion of "change" is not linked to anything objective, and it is ultimately 'liberated' from Christian influences. Let me give you some examples of "non-radical change" that Conservatives have come to love and accept: divorce; contraception; the 'right' to publish pornography; bikinis; public schools; unbridled capitalism; and worst of all, Religious Liberty. All these "changes" could only come to be embraced because accepting them was never based upon their intrinsic goodness, intrinsic evilness, or intrinsic neutralness, but rather simply because enough people in society thought it useful to make a law legalizing them. <br /><br />I don't want to ramble, so if you have any questions, please ask.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71148580478292129232012-09-06T20:18:31.859-07:002012-09-06T20:18:31.859-07:00@Nick:
The definition I quickly gleaned of "...@Nick:<br /><br />The definition I quickly gleaned of "conservative" is: "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes".<br /><br />This is heretical... how?Joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42191594172620322292012-09-04T09:53:07.428-07:002012-09-04T09:53:07.428-07:00My main objection to this post is that I don't...My main objection to this post is that I don't think it takes a far enough step back to the root of the problem: conservatism. When the article opens with "I have pretty much always been conservative," this implies that conservatism is still being embraced, rather than questioned along with libertarianism. <br /><br />The heresy of Conservatism is one of the most pernicious errors of our time, and this is precisely because most faithful Catholics think conservatism is the right path and thus let their guard down. The surest medicine for this ailment is to study and quote from the Papal Encyclicals of the last 150 years, particularly those of Leo XIII. What most people today don't realize is that the Papal Encyclicals of Leo XIII are some of the most sophisticated philosophical/theological concepts put into plain English, and with this knowledge one can easily demolish the heresies of conservatism and libertarianism.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48432826459154789632012-09-02T12:55:02.245-07:002012-09-02T12:55:02.245-07:00Daniel Smith: Most political systems seem more con...Daniel Smith: <i>Most political systems seem more concerned with 'security', 'order' or 'the common good' and are willing to sacrifice all manner of freedoms and liberties to obtain those goals.</i> […] <i>If all government action had to be justified within the context of 'maximizing freedom and liberty', we'd have far less government.</i><br /><br />Aren't all political systems an attempt to find the best (or most practical) trade-off between security and liberty? Anarchy would give us least government of all. But nobody really believes in anarchy because we all think that some degree of order and security is important and right.<br /><br /><i>The government would have to be the ultimate authority and arbitrator of course, but there would not be any need for millions of carefully crafted laws and regulations. Disputes could be handled by a network of judges who would rule on each case individually within some basic guidelines - more along the lines of our civil courts than our criminal courts.</i><br /><br />I do agree that, broadly speaking, that is a much better approach. Of course, both conservatives and liberals can agree that law as we currently have it is too nit-picking. I would distinguish between what we legislate and how much we legislate it. The temptation to codify every last detail appeals naturally to the mind that seeks order, but the fact is that it is impossible to capture enough of reality in the right way with that level of detail. Hence the need for actual <b>wisdom</b>, which is what judges are supposed to have, to make prudent judgements. (I just don't think "libertarian" is a particularly good word to describe this; as you said, accountability is key, and people generally consider "liberty" as opposed to, or at least orthogonal to, "accountability". I could get behind "Responsibilitarianism" though!)<br /><br /><br /><i>One scripture that always sticks in the back of my mind when thinking about whether Christians should push for 'a more Christian government' is Revelation 22:11 "Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy."</i><br /><br />That passage refers to the next life; i.e., the kind of person we make ourselves during this life determines our fate in the next. Obviously it doesn't mean that I should let myself continue to be wicked or vile now; and the Scriptures clearly exhort us to correct our brothers too. We are not to judge in the sense of passing judgement, or condemning someone, based on the state of his soul; but we must judge in the sense of evaluating or distinguishing right from wrong. <br /><br /><i>I can't help but think that God wants us to be less concerned with this world and more concerned with the next.</i><br /><br />Certainly, but we are still in this world, and must act in it. It is a common criticism against Christianity that it is only concerned with the next life, but it is a criticism that fails because Christian concern for the next life has resulted in a greater benefit to this life than any secular attempts to build earthly utopias.<br /><br />I think part of the problem is that we sometimes imagine "Christian government" to mean that the police will be forcing you into church at gunpoint on a Sunday morning, but of course that doesn't follow. It would however at least have to follow the truth, for Chirst is the Truth, and it is not true that individual liberty is the highest good (even the highest natural good). Which I think brings us back to Ed's position and natural law: truths about everything from murder to marriage that are available to all men without special revelation.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19208856649574570742012-09-01T13:27:04.076-07:002012-09-01T13:27:04.076-07:00Hi Tim, I'm the one looking for the Catholic r...Hi Tim, I'm the one looking for the Catholic response to the error in reasoning contra usury from Aristotle/Aquinas. <br /><br />Dr. Santelli seems to make the same mistake with regard to time preference that Anonymous does (that saving for the sake of future consumption invalidates Time Preference). But seeing as how he was also once a finance guy, I'll probably carry the discussion on with him.<br /><br />Thanks for the find! It looks like the best bet so far.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47117014650348321972012-09-01T12:41:05.327-07:002012-09-01T12:41:05.327-07:00An earlier comment asked about principled oppositi...An earlier comment asked about principled opposition to some forms of interest. Dr. Anthony Santelli appears to have reluctantly arrived at a position against compound interest here<br /><br />http://netarchy.com/Tim Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54066738812277645382012-08-24T16:52:06.601-07:002012-08-24T16:52:06.601-07:00Mr. Green: I don't think that acknowledging th...Mr. Green: <i>I don't think that acknowledging the "permissive rights" God gives us provides on its own any particular guidance as to how permissive a government should be — one of the reasons God leaves some things possible to us is surely to allow us to step in and prevent them ourselves. But where to draw that line has to be based on something further.</i><br /><br />One other thing: I was using God's "permissive rights" as a Christian justification for some forms of Libertarianism. I think the command to "judge not lest ye be judged" is also applicable; as well as many scriptures that tell us how to deal with those outside the Church. One scripture that always sticks in the back of my mind when thinking about whether Christians should push for 'a more Christian government' is Revelation 22:11 "Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy."<br /><br />I can't help but think that God wants us to be less concerned with <i>this</i> world and more concerned with the <i>next</i>.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19892549069269644852012-08-23T16:20:16.552-07:002012-08-23T16:20:16.552-07:00Mr. Green: But don't all political systems inv...Mr. Green: <i>But don't all political systems involve freedom or liberty? What would be specific to Libertarianism, then?</i><br /><br />Well, I guess you could say they all "involve" freedom and liberty, but I don't know that freedom and liberty would be their central tenet - as it is with Libertarianism. Most political systems seem more concerned with 'security', 'order' or 'the common good' and are willing to sacrifice all manner of freedoms and liberties to obtain those goals.<br /><br /><i>The idea of self-ownership sets a certain baseline for what sort of freedoms and how much liberty are reasonable (or at least, it intends to, if there were a coherent way to frame that).</i><br /><br />I don't think you need self-ownership to do that though. It seems that the central tenet of 'maximizing freedom and liberty' would be enough. If all government action had to be justified within the context of 'maximizing freedom and liberty', we'd have far less government.<br /><br /><i>I don't think that acknowledging the "permissive rights" God gives us provides on its own any particular guidance as to how permissive a government should be — one of the reasons God leaves some things possible to us is surely to allow us to step in and prevent them ourselves. But where to draw that line has to be based on something further.</i><br /><br />I agree. What I envision in my quasi-libertarian system is built-in checks and balances from the coupling together of liberty and accountability. If every individual is held personally accountable for how their liberty affects others, then we could have a semi self-regulating society. The government would have to be the ultimate authority and arbitrator of course, but there would not be any need for millions of carefully crafted laws and regulations. Disputes could be handled by a network of judges who would rule on each case individually within some basic guidelines - more along the lines of our civil courts than our criminal courts.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78718694194949056012012-08-23T08:05:30.978-07:002012-08-23T08:05:30.978-07:00@ Prof Feser,
Your “The Myth of Libertarian Neutr...@ Prof Feser,<br /><br />Your “The Myth of Libertarian Neutrality” http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/08/the-myth-of-libertarian-neutrality.htm, <br /><br />... is well and closely argued, and nicely highlights a number of question begging assumptions that go into the claims of libertarian neutrality.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44846311443776403952012-08-23T00:52:15.165-07:002012-08-23T00:52:15.165-07:00Ed, I think you misunderstand the sense in which R...Ed, I think you misunderstand the sense in which Rawlsian libertarians speak of "neutrality". The important point is their claim about the *type* of reasons that are legitimately appealed to in making moral and political demands on others. These reasons must be "neutral" in the sense that must be reasons that the person to whom the demand is made can accept *from his point of view*. For example, if Catholic Cal wanted to make a moral claim on an atheist Alf that Alf ought not to commit murder than Cal must, in justifying this moral demand, appeal to reasons that Alf can accept. These reasons cannot be based on the teaching of the Catholic church *even though this is why Cal believes in the truth of the moral claim*. Instead, Cal must appeal to the reasons that Cal knows Alf accepts from his own perspective.<br /><br />How does libertarianism add anything to this picture? I would submit that the idea of self-ownership, when properly re-conceptualized as self-sovereignty or self-authority, actually plays a part in the justificatory story. Here's why. Self-ownership is a poor conceptualization of the underlying libertarian commitment ('ownership' is a mess). The concept of “ownership” is really just another way of expressing the idea of *sovereignty* or *authority* over a certain domain of issues. It is in and through these concepts that we are better able to conceptualize and express the moral commitments that underlie the self-ownership thesis. I believe that these moral commitments are a devotion to the idea that individuals are “masters of their own domain”, so to speak. We have the inherent right to make our own decisions, to set down rules for ourselves, to set out life plans, etc. Thus, my claim is that we should discard talk of "self-ownership" and recast the discussion in terms of "self-authority" or "self-sovereignty".<br /><br />Now, how does this make any difference vis-a-vis the story of neutrality? Here's one explanation. The idea of self-sovereignty grounds what Stanley Benn called the "presumption of liberty" and provides the basis for the asymmetrical treatment of acting and acts of interference. Because of the self-sovereignty and the presumption of liberty, we can say that (1) individuals as self-sovereigns are under no standing obligation to justify their actions/non-actions/life plans to anyone else; and (2) interference with another, whether through moral demands to act in a certain way (authoritative prescriptions) or physical acts of aggression, require moral justification in order to override the individual's moral sovereignty and presumption of liberty.<br /><br />In order to ties this back to neutrality, recall that liberal neutrality as I have conceptualized it has to do with the type of reasons that are legitimately appealed to in justificatory practices. Catholic Cal, in making moral demands on Atheist Alf by way of authoritative prescriptions, thus interfering with Alf's domain of self-sovereignty, must justify his prescriptions by appealing to reasons that Alf can accept *given his worldview*. If Cal cannot do this--if he cannot find reasons that Alf can accept from with his comprehensive worldview--then Alf cannot justify his interference with the domain of Alf's self-sovereignty and has not overcome the presumption of liberty.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71611020090149674412012-08-22T16:55:41.392-07:002012-08-22T16:55:41.392-07:00Daniel Smith: Perhaps our difference is based on m...Daniel Smith: <i>Perhaps our difference is based on my thinking of rights in a political (as opposed to moral) sense. (It's like voting: we have the right to vote - whether we vote "right" or "wrong".)</i><br /><br />OK, I see what you mean. I think we still have to be careful how we apply that — we have a political right to "vote wrong" not because it's acceptable in itself, but because there is no practical way to determine what is the right way to vote. (If we knew that, there would be no point to voting in the first place!) However, if everyone agrees that, say, a certain party is wrong, then it could be banned, i.e. there would be no right to vote for that party. <br /><br />The freedom God grants us is parallel: some things we cannot do in the first place, e.g. defy gravity (like not being able to vote for a candidate because his name is not on the ballot); others we can do but will suffer the consequences if we do the wrong thing (like writing in an invalid candidate and having the vote rejected).<br /><br /><i>Freedom and Liberty are the foundations upon which Libertarianism is built so it has nothing to do with self-ownership for me - except in the sense of personal accountability (that we 'own' our actions).</i><br /><br />But don't all political systems involve freedom or liberty? What would be specific to Libertarianism, then? The idea of self-ownership sets a certain baseline for what sort of freedoms and how much liberty are reasonable (or at least, it intends to, if there were a coherent way to frame that). I don't think that acknowledging the "permissive rights" God gives us provides on its own any particular guidance as to how permissive a government should be — one of the reasons God leaves some things possible to us is surely to allow us to step in and prevent them ourselves. But where to draw that line has to be based on something further.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77823200785955916932012-08-19T18:02:28.196-07:002012-08-19T18:02:28.196-07:00"You seem confused by basic reasoning. If wha..."You seem confused by basic reasoning. If what determines the interest rate is the time preference, and if more people want more money in the future than those who want it now, then the interest rate will be negative."<br /><br />Firstly, I never said that the only factor determining interest rates is time preference (but it is most definitely a key factor).<br /><br />Secondly, if most people are saving for retirement, why are they lending their savings at negative interest?<br /><br />"But, this cannot be."<br /><br />Of course not, because your reasoning is bad.<br /><br />"You seem quite confused by this whole debate on economics, despite the centrality you give to Austrian economics in your ideology. The point is Austrian economics must account for some time preference in something like a real economy."<br /><br />Which is does.<br /><br />"The million pounds example is nothing like a real economy. In a real economy there are plenty of people quite interested in having a good proportion of their money in the future, rather than now."<br /><br />Yeah, savers. People with ... <i>low time preference</i><br /><br />"On the other hand, if one particular individual disappears then they do not decline by a necessarily set amount."<br /><br />What? <br /><br />"The point is that, even in the quotes you gave, Mises resorts to ignoring the reality of social associations automatically."<br /><br />No he doesn't, but I guess your worldview will not allow for such an interpretation (perhaps as you believe my worldview will not allow for yours).<br /><br />"Indeed, to understand society you need to understand both individuals as discrete individuals, and within their social associations and society and culture at large."<br /><br />Exactly. <br /><br />"We know no conception of individuality is adequate that does not take into consideration the myriad ties which normally bind the individual to others from birth to death"<br /><br />Yes, taking into account the relationships between individuals is important. Mises, and many libertarians, do not believe otherwise.<br /><br />"he admits the social nature of man, but then the next moment resorts back to atomistic individualism."<br /><br />Yeah, all of that discussion in <i>Human Action</i> regarding the division of labor, cooperation, trade, law ... that's all a denial of the social nature of man. <br /><br />"You simply dodge the point, though at least you are now being honest and are arguing clearly against the social nature of man)"<br /><br />The point is that you believe your perspective (where man has no existence outside of society) is some sort of self-evident axiom. It isn't. You're actually going to have to defend that position.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73641043418228576022012-08-19T18:02:13.069-07:002012-08-19T18:02:13.069-07:00"Oh such a rare wit you have. Just how do you..."Oh such a rare wit you have. Just how do you come up with these clever retorts?"<br /><br />Thanks, it's a gift.<br /><br />"You have been shown ... all of which severely condemn usury."<br /><br />Sure, but none of it meets the simple threshold of universal magisterium. That's the one thing hilariously absent in your list.<br /><br />"as long as no recent, Ex Cathedra statement is made."<br /><br />Like I said, it doesn't have to be recent. It doesn't even have to be Ex Cathedra as long as it's a canon of a dogmatic council. <br /><br />"Hardily the worthy attitude of a traditional Christian."<br /><br />Okay.<br /><br />"Dante is one of the premier sacred artists of Western Christendom. He is renowned as a summer up in art, in an eloquent and intelligent fashion, of the doctrine of St.Thomas and the Schoolmen."<br /><br />So what? In a discussion of official Church teaching, you need to cite ... official Church teaching. Dante, as great an artist as he was, doesn't cut it.<br /><br />"chanting the mantras of Mises and rites of Rothbard, and actually read some classic literature."<br /><br />Ommm, tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito! Oh wait, that's Virgil.<br /><br />"And Ayn Rand doesn’t count!"<br /><br />I've never read Ayn Rand but nice try. Your caricatured worldview is showing, by the way.<br /><br />"I’m not aware of any condemnation of it."<br /><br />That was actually an easy one. Aquinas doesn't believe it to be a sin Q78 IIae A4 reasoning from a false premise I pointed out <b><i>in the very first comment of the thread</i></b><br /><br />"Time-preference isn’t accepted as main explanation of interest by Neoclassical/mainstream economics or the post-Keynesians or the Institutionalists."<br /><br />Is this what Distributists really believe? You should sign up for blogger so you don't unfairly associate other "anonymous" people with your ignorance.<br /><br />"So the fact it is central to the Austrians is definitely no proof of its soudness."<br /><br />Never said it was a "proof".<br /><br />"if the prudential in the economy, and their demand for money, outnumbers the spendthrifts, then logically the interest rate will be negative."<br /><br />This deserves to be Robinson Crusoe'd. Okay so let's say we have an economy of 100k people. 60k save most of their income whereas 40k spend most of their income. <br /><br />Walk me through the steps of how negative interest rates arise.traumereihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04060507477624329358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29066002045152399362012-08-19T16:59:47.800-07:002012-08-19T16:59:47.800-07:00….Continued
“Again, non sequitur.”
You seem confu...….Continued<br /><br />“Again, non sequitur.”<br />You seem confused by basic reasoning. If what determines the interest rate is the time preference, and if more people want more money in the future than those who want it now, then the interest rate will be negative. But, this cannot be.<br /><br /><br />”The million is just for illustration. It could be ten or a hundred $ or £ or ¥ or whatever. All else being equal, people would rather have X amount of money now, rather than later.”<br /><br /> You seem quite confused by this whole debate on economics, despite the centrality you give to Austrian economics in your ideology. The point is Austrian economics must account for some time preference in something like a real economy. The million pounds example is nothing like a real economy. In a real economy there are plenty of people quite interested in having a good proportion of their money in the future, rather than now.<br /><br /><br />“They are ephemeral in that, if the individuals making up a society/culture disappear, then that society/culture ceases to exist.”<br /><br /> On the other hand, if one particular individual disappears then they do not decline by a necessarily set amount. Their relationship, at one level, to individuals is complex.<br /><br /><br />“Sure, at some level you can treat society/culture as separate from the individual. In fact, Mises would have agreed with you.<br /><br />It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence.”<br /> <br />The point is that, even in the quotes you gave, Mises resorts to ignoring the reality of social associations automatically. Indeed, to understand society you need to understand both individuals as discrete individuals, and within their social associations and society and culture at large. As Robert Nisbet puts it;<br /><br /> ‘man is not a self-sufficing in isolation…his nature cannot be deduced simply from the elements innate in the germs plasm, and…between man and such social groups as the family, local group, and interest association there is an indispensible connection. We know no conception of individuality is adequate that does not take into consideration the myriad ties which normally bind the individual to others from birth to death’<br /><br /> Now what Mises does in the quote is to repeat the usual pattern for liberals: he admits the social nature of man, but then the next moment resorts back to atomistic individualism.<br /><br /><br />“I repeat. that's where you go wrong in privileging your perspective as "unbiased". Everyone is biased, but not everyone admits it apparently.”<br /><br /> You simply dodge the point, though at least you are now being honest and are arguing clearly against the social nature of man (which is this ‘my perspective’ you are referring to).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46735706537153110402012-08-19T16:58:18.408-07:002012-08-19T16:58:18.408-07:00traumerei
“ Now you're cooking with gas!”
... traumerei <br /><br />“ Now you're cooking with gas!”<br /> Oh such a rare wit you have. Just how do you come up with these clever retorts?<br /> Anyway, I think we have exhausted the debate on the morality of the issue. Especially if we recall we are not here primarily discussing the issue from standpoint of the spiritual health of the individual, but simply in terms of political or social philosophy. Like many Roman Catholic libertarians you set a very, very high bar to the condemnation of your ideology from traditional Christian sources, smacking of the desire of an ideologue to preserve your ideology at all costs.. You have been shown Scripture, Fathers, Councils, Schoolmen, universal Church Tradition, and Popes (including an encyclical from Benedict XIV made binding on the whole Roman Church in 1835) from recent centuries, all of which severely condemn usury. But you are quite happy to subscribe, without a hint of doubt, to actions and principles divergent from traditional Christians ones, as long as no recent, Ex Cathedra statement is made. Hardily the worthy attitude of a traditional Christian.<br /><br /><br />“Sorry, I'm looking for something a bit more definitive than an author who you believe is a good "summariser".”<br />Dante is one of the premier sacred artists of Western Christendom. He is renowned as a summer up in art, in an eloquent and intelligent fashion, of the doctrine of St.Thomas and the Schoolmen. I’m not offering him as an authority in his own right, but still you attitude towards him confirms that libertarians should spend less time chanting the mantras of Mises and rites of Rothbard, and actually read some classic literature. And Ayn Rand doesn’t count!<br /><br /><br />“Perpetuating the "sinful" practice of usury through patronizing the lender, that's not a sin?”<br />I’m not aware of any condemnation of it.<br /><br />“Time-preference isn't some obscure Austrian belief.”<br />So? Time-preference isn’t accepted as main explanation of interest by Neoclassical/mainstream economics or the post-Keynesians or the Institutionalists. So the fact it is central to the Austrians is definitely no proof of its soudness.<br /><br /><br />“Please explain how time-preference could logically easily produce negative interest rates. Because simply having a large number of savers is insufficient.”<br /> Yes, it is. As Robinson points out, if the prudential in the economy, and their demand for money, outnumbers the spendthrifts, then logically the interest rate will be negative.<br /> <br />Continued…<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com