Cherry-picking Libertarians

[WorshipInTruth]

Paleo, so I see that you consider yourself a presuppositionalist. Why then wouldn't you join God's Reformed faith as I am sure you know that presuppositionalism is a favorite of my Reformed Calvinist brethren. In fact, the whole Protestant Reformation is largely a bi-product of people like Luther and Calvin adopting for themselves the presuppositionalism of Augustine. Why do you wish to remain within that grotesque rotting corpse known as "catholicism"?

[jimbo525SE]

I do like Adam Smith, but Milton Friedman is the economist that I most respect.

[seltian]

NAFTA and CAFTA have ruined both the US and Latin America. They destroy traditional economies that latinos have worked on for generations, so the latinos must go to the cities to work in factories that have terrible conditions.

Products manufactured in their factories are much cheaper than American products, so our industrial workers lose their jobs.

[migkillertwo]

what on earth is so great about a "traditional economy"? Its great because some community, at the expense of their own betterment, has worked on it for "generations"?

[seltian]

So "betterment" involves slaving away in a factory, making ridiculously low wages, so that some rich white guy in another country can make a killing?

[migkillertwo]

when the only alternative for the strong, healthy adults is subsistence agriculture, and the alternative for children is drug dealing, crime, or prostitution, ABSOLUTELY it is betterment. And why is it wrong for the consumer of the labor (the capitalist) to make a killing? If you knew anything about economics, you would understand that profit is a key-indicator of efficiency.

oh, and you'd also be supporting free trade, cuz ya know, very nearly all economists agree on that free trade is god.

[seltian]

That's not the alternative! The alternative is letting them continue to live on the same, sustainable economy that they've always lived on!

[migkillertwo]

sure its "sustainable" (Until you get shitty weather and subsistence agriculture isn't quite enough to feed you anymore, or until you're outcompeted by more efficient corporate farmers), but why would you want that when the nearby factory offers you a better standard of living?

[TechnoNubian]

I am anti-federalist. I am against federalism. America was a confederacy (United States of America) 1781 and it took only 6 years to destroy it and make some "union" or constitutional republic. Rothbard I believe should became a Christian since it was in his heart. It's those randians you should worry about, they are radically atheist. I am austrian school economics yet I am a hardcore Christian. Even with the Parable of the Talents (sp?), Jesus spoke about, is business-like.

[paleocrat]

It is my contention that the Austrian School of economics is contrary to Christianity. Their philosophy concerning man, the relationship man has with others, the relationship man has with the material world, and their belief that economics is an autonomous science outside the jurisdiction of ethics all fly in the face of Christian philosophy. Then again, I am presupposing the truths of Catholicism and Catholic Social Doctrine. At any rate, I am no fan of the market mystics of the Austrian School

[evidenttruths]

We as a country would benefit from the Austrian School, however, in relation to where we are today.

If Ron Paul's policies, for example, were in effect, there would be a lot less big corporations benefiting from the prominent government influence that they have attained.

But overall, I can't see how someone who accepts von Mises can eventually take up the Catholic view of economic justice, since it was Mises himself who wrongly accused Christianity of dabbling in Socialism.

[WorshipInTruth]

@paleocrat Yeah you are letting the authoritarian jesuits play games upon your altruism. No government should be allowed to intrude upon the independent conscience of an individual. I have noticed that G.K. Chesterton is the doorway of descent from a decent anti-statist individual into a romanist totalitarian.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth No government should be allowed to intrude upon the independent conscience of an individual. Why not ?  What if my independent conscience is conflicting with your independent conscience ?

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 "What if my independent conscience is conflicting with your independent conscience"....So what if it is, as long as nobody is breaking the "non-aggression principle" there should be no need for any type of government intervention.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth OK, fair enough, but if I don't believe in the non aggression principle, you are still forcing your moral beliefs onto me.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 How am I "forcing my moral beliefs onto you"? Is this some kind of hypothetical situation we are talking about here?? Government has proven to be the only means by which "beliefs are forced unto people" to begin with so why are you opposing my minarchist stance??

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth The hypothetical situation is the small government society you want. Unless you want pure anarchism, some people are always going to have their moral beliefs imposed others. If I don't believe in the right to private property or even the right of other people to live without fear of violence, then you are going to have to impose your moral belief system upon me with the threat of force from the government.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 So you are saying that you do not believe in the right of individuals to own property?? That is fine, in a minarchist limited government system you can go live on a private commune if you want and share everything privately with like minded people [many collectivist communes were started in the U.S. back when it was a limited Republic], but the second you assert that you have the right to take or "reappropriate" somebody elses property then YOU are being the coercive one.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth I was just using myself as hypothetical person that did not believe in private property rights. I do believe in private property rights, but not in an absolute way.

But what if I don't want to live on a commune and I specifically want something that you have. If I want to take something of yours, you must legislate your morality onto me and use the threat of force via the government to stop me from doing so.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160  So I legislate "my morality unto you" by legislating that theivery and robbery be illegal?? Yes it is the most basic role of government to punish and if possible prevent such crimes, if it did not we would essentially be living in a barbaric anarchist state. Even the most primitive savages punish theft amongst themselves. If somebody is using threat of force to take something of yours then you have the right to self defense (whether from government or otherwise).

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 The right to protect life and property is sacred. Once you decide you wish to coercively acquire the property of another you are breaking the "non-aggression principle" and they then have a legitimate right to defend themselves, law enforcement is one of the ways in which we defend against criminality.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 How does my system impose anything on anybody?? Are you suggesting that we should give up rights out of fear of violence?? Ben Franklin is one of my least favorite of the founding fathers but he was right in stating that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Because it is your ethical/moral belief system that says every individual has the right to own property. If you want to have a society based on these beliefs you must legislate and force onto other people that do not share this belief. I am not saying that your beliefs are necessarily wrong here, but to pretend that you wouldn't be imposing your values on other people is just not correct.

[ryan84160]

@ryan84160 In any type of society some people are going to have to impose their values on others.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 Ok so your argument is that if I believe in liberty then my moral belief system "forces" liberty unto people. Laugh!!!! My beliefs entail a LACK of coercive force by government, so the only thing I would be imposing is a Bill of Rights both limiting and clarifying the role of government. You cannot really "enforce" freedom and liberty unto somebody as it is the natural state into which we are all born, the question is whether or not you will preserve it.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Firt of all, I object to libertarians and conservatives near monopoly on the words freedom and liberty. What I think of as freedom might be different from what you think of as freedom.

Anyway, what is my moral beleifs system is that I am entitled to physically harms or steal from any individual I want to ? How are you going to stop me ?

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 It seems that you completely reject the idea of absolute truth, you assert that everything is relative. That is a foolish and immoral stance. The words "freedom" and "liberty" have an ABSOLUTE definition, you cannot just say "oh well it means something different to me", no it means what it means, definitions are objective, not subjective. But it is true that most Americans [such as yourself] seem to no longer understand the idea of "liberty" as expressed by the founding fathers.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth.That is not true. I do, wholeheartedly, believe in objective truth. Objective morality on the other hand, I do not believe in for a second. If you are going to claim the objective morality exists, you must prove evidence to back up your claim.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Freedom does have an absolute definition. However it can mean VERY different things based on values and context. For example it can mean the political freedom to vote for your government, it can mean the freedom walk around naked in public, it can mean freedom from fear, it can mean freedom to offend,freedom to not be offended, freedom from hunger,freedom from poverty,freedom to own nuclear weapons etc.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 Okay, let me clarify this for you, when speaking about politics, "freedom" and "liberty" refer to freedom from government restraint; the freedom to carry out your life without being harassed by the authorities of the land, that is poltical liberty and freedom. If you want "freedom" from abstract concepts like "fear, terror, sin etc." whatever, you will need to have faith and trust in Christ Jesus (God) or some other higher principle.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Fair enough, as long as it is clearly defined I have no problem.

Fear is not an abstract concept and neither is terror.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 "Fear is not an abstract concent and neither is terror", ummm sure they are, in fact both the words "fear" and "terror" are abstract nouns.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 The reason it seems that libertarians and conservatives have a monopoly on terms like "freedom and liberty" is because we are the only ones who seem to care about it. The "progressives" seem much more concerned about trying to use the government (or their NGO's) to achieve their twisted form of "social justice" than with retaining what few liberties we still have.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth How can you possibly say that conservatives care about personal freedom ? They care about economic freedom only. When it comes to issues such as, freedom of speech, freedom of or from religion, drugs, reproductive freedom, sexual freedom, euthanasia, prostitution and pornography, they are for government control.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 Conservatives do seem to care more about liberty and freedom then the political "liberals", economic freedom (the liberty to buy, sell and do business as you please) is just one part of that. You must have your head in the sand, "liberals" care nothing about freedom of speech they are all about censorship in the name of "political correctness" (ohh boy dont offend the homosexuals or blacks or jews). By the way, it is freedom OF religion, not freedom "from" religion.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth So conservatives care about the rights of doctors and patients to decide when they have the right to end their own life ? They care about the rights of private citizens to view pornography and decide for themselves what they can and can not put into their own body ? Conservatives care about the rights of anyone to entire into a marriage with the person they love ? Conservatives care about keeping government and religion separate?

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 The "right to end their own life", wow I never read about that "right" in the Bill of Rights nor was it ever mentioned in the Constitution or by the Founders, I wonder why? Anybody can kill theirselves if that is what they really want, but if you "help" somebody do so you could face charges of murder, it is as simple as that, conservatives do not believe that anybody has a "right to murder" and that includes abortion.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth What does the bill of rights have to do with anything ?Saying "Because it is or isn't in the constitution" is a horrible argument.

That is not true at all, if someone is immobile and suffering in a hospital bed they don't even have the option of killing themselves.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 The "rights of private citizens to view pornography", actually that right (freedom of expression) is sealed in the Constitution and pornography is extremely widespread so I do not know what you are complaining about, if you ask me, this country is in the thrall of pornography and needs to be delivered from it. Those poor abused girls. I have seen the horrors of pornography firsthand.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth That depends on how you interpret the constitution.

How exactly do you think the country should be delivered from the thralls of pornography ?

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 I already went over the whole issue of "illicit" substances, it is only libertarians who seem to care about the decriminalization of substances, the democrats and political liberals are all about criminializing substances as it supports their nanny state. What don't you understand about that? The right of gay marriage?

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth You are right, libertarians do, but conservatives sure as hell do not want to see the decriminalization or legalization of drugs.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 First of all, marriage is a RELIGIOUS insitution and the state should of never had anything to do with it to begin with (giving benefits to married couples etc.), it is a personal covenant between two people and never can a homosexual marriage be legitimate because the very God who first ordained marriage does not accept it as legitimate.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Uhh actually right now it is also a state institution and as long as it is a state institution, it should be open to everyone. I do actually agree with you here, the government should get out of marriage.If the institution of marriage were privatized ,however, homosexuals could get married within any religious or secular group that would accept them whether you like it or not.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 "care about keeping government and religion seperate". Well first of all government and religion are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SEPERATE, would you really seek to seperate government from morality?? HOW TERRIBLE! The idea is to seperate Church (the religio-INSTITUTION) from State so that no private church INSTITUTION (such as the catholic church for example) can gain predominance over the state and use it to enforce its edicts, this is not to say that government should be void of religion.

[ryan84160]

Respond to this video... Religion and morality are not the same thing,nice try. If a politicians morality is based on religion, there is no problem. The problem comes when the politician uses state property or authority to help to support religion in any way,shape or form.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 As I noted earlier, it is freedom OF religion NOT freedom FROM religion. The whole point of seperation of Church and state was to make sure that the state can not impede on the personal and private practice of religion. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." - James 1:27

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Why are you quoting the Bible at me ? If I started quoting the Quran at you , would you find this convincing ?

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth I didn't mention anything about liberals. I have no idea why you brought that up. I was talking about conservatives.

"By the way, it is freedom OF religion, not freedom "from" religion." So people don't have a right not to believe in a religion ? Is this really what you are trying to say? Does the U.S constitution not protect a persons right to be an atheist, agnostic, or non religious ?????

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 "Does the U.S. constitution not protect a persons right to be an athiest, agnostic, or non-religious"?? Of course it does, I never said that it didn't nor have I ever heard of an American constitutionalist wanting to infrige on somebody's personal conscience. But it is worthy to note that at the time the National Constitution was ratified the state Contitutions actually had amendments which state that no non-Christian can participate in government, cannot trust the oath of an athiest

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Ok fair enough, but what exactly do you mean when you say there is no right to freedom from religion ? How else is one supposed to interpret this other than there is no right not to be religious ?

Why is that worthy to note at all ???

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 Those laws (constitutional amendments) prohibiting catholics and athiests from state governments are actually still on the books although they are unfortunately no longer enforced.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth They are also illegal as the U.S constitution has supremacy .

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 And the liberals know nothing about freedom OF religion, they do not even allow us to express our religion openly and even charge some with "hate speech" for simply preaching Christian values. These "hate speech" laws oppose both freedom of speech and freedom of religion and who is it pushing these draconian "thought crimes"?? The democrats. The political libertarians are also the only ones pushing for the decriminalization of substances, the democrats just make MORE laws.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth I absolutely agree with you here. I am opposed to hate speech laws. If you want to be an ass back wards hate filled bigot, you are well within your rights to do so.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth If you are going to claim that a "natual state" exists ,you are first going to need to define what you mean and then you are going to need to demonstrate that it actually exists.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 Laugh, by "natural state", I am referring to the condition onto which we are born. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights upon birth.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth "We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights upon birth." You want to know my reply to this ? Evidence please. Simply asserting something to be the case does not make it so.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 Ok so your stance is that "there is no Creator, we have no rights except those which the government allows us". What a wicked, wicked stance. You seem to miss the whole fact that when we are born it is in a state of freedom until some outside instutition (i.e government) decides it can tell us what to do, remember that government is a MAN created institution, it doesnt exist in nature as does the human form. Do I really need to provide evidence for that??

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth This is a BLATANT logical fallacy. It is called an appeal to consequence. The fact the you may or may not like the conclusion of a particular premise says ABSOLUTELY nothing about weather it is true or not.Because you find the idea of humans being born with out natural rights to be "wicked", does NOT mean that we are born with them.

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 No, I stated that humans ARE born with natural (God given) liberty. This is to say that we are not born into slavery but into liberty until a government or some force takes it away from us. I need to provide no evidence for that as it is COMMON SENSE, it is common sense that government is a MAN MADE institution and does not exist in nature, not amongst humans are least. In this all the Founding Fathers agreed, I assure you they were no dummies.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth But its just not true, a child that is born a slave is still a slave and has virtually no rights. A child that is born within a state still has to follow the rules of the state. You can assert "natural rights" all you want, but it does not mean they actually exist.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth " Do I really need to provide evidence for that?" UHH yes, yes you do. If you are going to make a claim, you require evidence to back it up. Otherwise it is just a baseless assertion. What do you not understand ?

[WorshipInTruth]

@ryan84160 If you are going to argue with me that what I said was not common sense then you need to look no further than the very first words "We hold these truths to be self-evident:". Did you hear that?? SELF EVIDENT!! Do you know what that means?? That means that it is easily seen and understood, that it is OBVIOUS and READILY APPARENT. My God, I cant believe I even have to tell you this.

[ryan84160]

@WorshipInTruth Circular reasoning: a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. Essentially what you are saying is that you believe in equality because you think people should be treated equally. I do believe that all humans deserve to be treated equally under the law, BUT I have very good reasons for doing so. It is NOT self evident.

[WorshipInTruth]

@paleocrat The Austian school of economics does not predispose any individual towards a belief that economics is outside the jurisdiction of ethics, it merely backs up the Biblical truth that the ethics of God working upon individual men is authoritative over the advancement of the state.

[grandeTO9]

@paleocrat Is it a necessity that an economic system reflect the values of Christianity in order for said economic system to exist in a society? Christianity and "Catholic Social Doctrine" support the idea of charitable contributions to society. If Christians adopt the concept of compassionate conservatism (or charitable donations to the less fortunate in a society) then it would not be necessary for an economic system to reflect the exact tenets of the faith (assuming such a thing even exists).

[tetramin600]

Adam Smith was NOT a libertarian. Rothbard always stressed the Continental traditions over the British. How about you find something in Bastiat?

[Tony63efc]

Today (Sunday 20th July 08) the retiring collection at church was for CAFOD, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. If Paleocrat believes that the USA has the right to protect its industries then the case for Africa is exponentially stronger. The reality is that the World Bank (51% owned by the US treasury insists that countries requiring loans privatise their utilities thereby providing rich (cherry)pickings for western companies. Hypocrisy anyone?

[utubehayter]

Yes, and I advocate that no one borrow from the world bank. Also the US should divest from the world bank itself. Such endeavors are not capitalistic but ultra socialistic.

[utubehayter]

Paleocrat is wrong - the US could be seen as having the obligation of protecting the property and lives of US citizens (its never mentioned in the constitution). But all foreign investments are the responsibility of the investor not of the US govt. Understand that this assurance is precisely why the US companies are going to China. Because their investment in China is "protected" by American Govt. Take that off and they will think twice.

[dataloreforever]

Nicely put. I wonder where the fact that the US also has the highest debt per person fits into this argument?  A lot of people are living off of credit. A recent statistic shows that 50+ million Americans are considering Bankruptcy. That is around 17% of current population.

[utubehayter]

Let me throw in a personal experience here. I was in the market buying computer cases. I bought 2 cases from an American corporation - they were both made in China and substandard in quality AND incredibly expensive. Infact, I paid twice as much for the American cases, and then in work and time because of the issues they created due to substandard quality.

Should I buy a third American case? Just to buy American? Note that I agree that in other items MADE IN USA are better in quality.

[utubehayter]

Now after this bad experience I bought two cases from Lian-Li a Chinese enterprise. It costed me half the dollars, No pain and got absolutely beautiful and appropriate cases. Should I have not done that?

How would you feel if I told you that because I was not able to get the two first cases to work right, a couple of US Marines lost their lives (it was supposed for their training). Still want protectionism? And what is the bound on these import duties? 100%, 200%, 5000%? No Sir, it doesn't help

[Darganot]

How is distributism different from primitivism?

Throwing out all of the tribalist BS, the romance of primal culture, and the demonizaiton of technology, what you're talking about sounds to me like a form of 'green anarchy'.

I identify as a primitivist because I believe people should work with their environment, not against it. Living a 'local' and 'agrarian' life seems to me to be an ideal situation.  You have a direct effect on those around you, as do they to you.

[paleocrat]

Because Distributism is, to some degree, tribal. We don't believe we were placed where we were by accident. The old "blood and soil" adage is taken serious by Distributists.

As for our views on culture, it would be due to our being (by and large) Catholic.

And I have no problem with technology. My take on technology would be somewhere between the helplessly skeptic Amish and the rabidly optimistic technocrat.

[johnebii]

Tying up loose ends...

I respect your position much more after this video, although I vehemently disagree with it.

It's like...well at least he holds this position for a valid reason. Others hold this position for emotional or political or personal reasons. As I've said before, at least you are dealing in logic.

5 Stars as a video.

You should also tell the folks in the description that not only am I a good guy, but that I am ABSOLUTELY riveting as well.

[johnebii]

How do I advocate coersion in the area of law?

'We are part of a federation here...' You are part of a state as well (backwards). You are part of a planet (forwards) as well. I argue your designation of national borders as the stopping place is arbitrary.

'...trading and working with those we are close with...' As I point out b/c of technology, ease of travel, etc. we may find ourselves closer to those outside our borders than we are with many within.

[paleocrat]

Do you believe that the state has the right to collect taxes? Do you not see that putting a law on the books (a law is only law with sanctions) is a form of coercion, or at least the presumption of such a right? It hopes to deter. It hopes that its weight will cause one to refrain from the actions touched upon by the law.

Lack of any and all fraternal care for those with a common history, traditions, and culture. Can't blame you, postmodern world and all. The founders would cry...

[johnebii]

Now you are arguing that one of the most diverse nations in the history of the earth (FROM IT'S BEGINNING, I might add) now is a place of common 'history, traditions, and culture' See U.S. History 101.

Good law is not coercion, it protection. See my video 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to Liberty'. Sorry that's the name of it. A good concepts of liberty is required for all of these subjects. I.e., it's not coersion if you tell a man he can't murder someone, etc. this restriction enhances..

[johnebii]

liberty, the kinds of restrictions you advocate diminish it.

[paleocrat]

It would diminish your notion of freedom, but I believe your notion of freedom is better defined as license. There is a difference between liberty and license, and you have no means by which to differentiate the two.

[paleocrat]

Nobody here is denying that this nation has, in its history, a certain degree of "diversity," but if you want to argue that the religious, cultural, and racial diversity you see today has been that way for the majority of our existence, you are playing the part of the fool.

You admit that law is a form of restriction, but not coercion? Wow. Nothing like playing semantics! So let me ask, was God's law evil in that it was coercive? Was Paul wrong on the state in Romans 13?

[johnebii]

you say the diversity of today, i SAID from the beginning i mean just by the nature of our founding we are a congregation of people from different parts of europe if nothing else which cannot be said for say ...europe. in 1776 we were one of the most diverse nations on the face of the planet. restriction not coercion exactly, u r telling me if i don't want somebod to murder someone i am commiting coercion against the would be murdered?! i'm protecting a homicide victim FROM coercion

[paleocrat]

I'll let you look this one up. This sums up my sentiments on the matter:

John Jay: Federalist No. 2

"Providence has been pleased to give us..."

But your law, along with the institution which bears the right to inflict punishment for the breaking of that law, is coercive by its very nature. This is the nature of law, John.

[johnebii]

So you are saying the Catholic church demands economic nationalism? And Jim Wallis is out there advocating a welfare state that would dwarf the one we have now. Do you agree with him also or is he a heretic? I have no idea how you determine these things.

'The revealed religion of Catholicism' So economic nationalism is mandated by Catholicism. You really have to help me out here. I know nothing of the Catholic church. I thought the Pope was a socialist, though for the most part.

[paleocrat]

Jim Wallis is an evangelical (raised in the Brethren denomination), not a Catholic.

Socialism has been (and continues to be) condemned by the Catholic Church. So has Communism and laissez faire economics that would disregard various aspects essential to Catholic Social Theory and morality.

You should study Distributism. Chesterton's Outline of Sanity, What's Wrong With the World?, and Utopia of Userers are all excellent books. Belloc is good as well. Distributist Perpectives Vol. 1 is good.

[johnebii]

Tell me what Catholic Social theory or what part of it eliminates free trade, that's what I need to know from you. Where is it found in the Catholic religion, that's what I want to know. You could do a lot to bolster your position by doing this simple thing. After you do it though, i'll still want to know where it overrides free will. Your argument boils down to some how we are going to hell us free traders.

[paleocrat]

A. I'm doing a video on Catholic Social Theory and Free Trade soon. Ryan Setliff from LewRockwell and OldRight asked me that.

B. Where do you get the idea that free will and radical individualism is the end of all economic affairs? Your "love" notion simply won't fly due to plethora of beliefs pertaining to love and how it works out in economics, politics, etc.

C. Your economic theory was fine-tuned and championed by atheists. Why ignore historical Christian teaching on the matter?

[johnebii]

not true. milton friedman and other economists of all stripes have advocated free trade

[paleocrat]

haha I am not saying that free trade is without its Christian advocates. But if one were to look at those seen with the early formulation of the dogma (we can and should include the Austrian School), you'll find a strong anti-government, anti-church strain running through them... not to mention a Utopian idea of One World Order and peace.

[johnebii]

'm not saying i think people act in the economic realm b/c of love. i'm saying free trade is the system i advocate b/c i love people and want to see them prosper even as their souls prosper. these are two very different things.

[paleocrat]

The question had to do with presuppositions. If you said yours was love, then my criticism stands.

[johnebii]

Aren't you cherry picking two letters from Jefferson after a whole career of writings?

'...a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government...'

That just sounds really really free to me, I don't know.

[paleocrat]

The cherry-picking had more to do with Adam Smith, but on with Jefferson...

I don't hesitate for a moment to admit that Jefferson, for the larger portion of his life, advocated free trade.

I also insist that he was an agrarian, a distributist, and a localist.

Furthermore, he was far from laissez faire in regards to law, having some rather peculiar sodomy laws on the books.

The issue here is with the tendency to ignore his end, what he says he learned in life and experience.

[johnebii]

For once paleo understand...agrarian, distributist and localist do not exclude free trade!  this is where this argument is flawed not on whether he WAS these things or not.

[paleocrat]

Then why do most agrarians oppose free trade? Why is it that the the freer the trade becomes the less farmland we see?

Distributism sees to it that land ownership and the means of accumulating wealth are in the majority of hands. It also puts in place means by which to secure small land/business owners from being absorbed by larger ones. Hmm...

Free trade doesn't destroy localism? Oh, local identity and small businesses thrive in free trade societies! Too many small towns dying off to buy this

[johnebii]

yes some river towns died off b/c of he invention of highways railroads and running water systems...oh that we were back in the day of fetching water from the river...how fanciful it would be. in that case i say god bless destroyed local identities. you're forgetting it's protectionism in all it's different forms -liscensing, regulation, etc. that creates acc. of wealth in the hands of the few free trade has proven over and over to acc. wealth to the many

[paleocrat]

haha Free trade places wealth in the hands of the many? That is awfully strange when considering the concentration of wealth in America.

Here is a problem: we differ on what we believe to be ultimate goods. We differ on our understanding of wealth. You could see a world where 99% were wage earners living happily so long as they have their TV's. My view of the world is much different.

Which leads to me ask again... what is your worldview? What are your most ruling presuppositions on this?

[johnebii]

AMERICA DOESN'T HAVE FREE TRADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are freer than many and we have accumulation of wealth spread much more widely across the populace, but we dont have free trade. let's look at the full practice of protectionism. let's say cuba where has wealth accumulated beyond castro and his hand picked few, mexico where is the wealth besides the political class and their minions on and on in ultra protectionist societies the wealth is ONLY in the hands of the hand-picked...in the u.s....

[johnebii]

it is heavily concentrated in the hands of the cultural and politically-favored elite, but the avg man has much more capital and the ability to accumulate wealth than anywhere else. do you think higher % of pop. in china or u.s. are wage earners? venezuala or u.s.? mexico or u.s.? russia or u.s.? iran or u.s.?

higher % of entrepreneurs in u.s. (capital owners) than anywhere else. yes acc of wealth in hands of fewer than would like but COMPARED TO REST OF WORLD much less b/c of relative freeTr.

[paleocrat]

Alright, let's talk numbers:

Top 1% of Americans own 40% of money in America. The top 10% owns just over 70%. This means that 90% of America owns 30% of the wealth. Ah, I see clearly now!

And comparing us to the rest of the world does very little for your argument. To make matters worse, you are falling into the trap of attributing to X what could be attributed to various other factors. You need to shake the old "ground is wet, must have rained" fallacy.

[johnebii]

two things people who throw these number around don't understand. top 10% of america PRODUCES 70% of the wealth in america!!! of course liberals off all stripes run like the dickens when they hear these numbers. Furthermore, the numbers in other countries are MUCH MUCH MUCH worse!! don't you get it?

[johnebii]

the 'wet outside so must have rained' is fallacy on your part. you look at a whole set of emperical evidence and draw logical conclusions. what u r saying is like putting 20 humans in air conditioning and putting 20 in heat and the 20 in heat sweat and saying well we can't say it was b/c they were in the heat and the others were in a/c. it could have just been some other happenstance. nonsense.

[paleocrat]

The fallacy regards the making of a claim, something I did not do here. You attribute all of this to free trade, though you say we are actually just freer than others. The point is that you have never, ever shown a causal connection between the two. Never. Worse yet, you don't show how it couldn't include other factors, some of which may be primary. Instead, you just fall face first into the fallacy... over and over.

[paleocrat]

It would be more accurate to say that about 85% of America (subtracting the 10% and the 5% of unemployed) produces what the top 10% profits from. The wage-earners (masses) produce those things that feed this 10% with 71% of the economies wealth. Justice, justice all around!

[johnebii]

your logic is leading you to say that more restrictive economies ussr, cuba, n. korea, venezuala and many others don't have a lower standard of living than free(er) economies like u.s. england etc. do you see where your logic is taking you? what about you tell me this other magical 'primary' reason? Call it anectodal or what have you but it happens over and over and over again free economies prosper, restrictive ones flounder and it amazes me that when we have seen economies like...

[johnebii]

china, hong kong, india, estonia and others change right before our very eyes from one system to the other and seen the increased prosperity and standard of living that has resulted you still refuse to accept the notion that it was more freedom or a freer economy that caused it when they were given more freedom then it happened. Please deal more in common sense and reality.

My 'causation' is a simple simple simple review of history.

[paleocrat]

ahhhhh! You are doing that again. See, I tried using an argument similar to that a while back during the time of Paleo Radio. I would throw out stats left and right about how we prospered and became a superpower (not a debtor nation) during the times where Protectionism prevailed. You threw a fit! Now you wish to use arguments that are, in principle, identical? C'mon.

And why do you believe that "more freedom" than "no freedom" means that "unleashed freedom" is the answer? That's bizarre.

[paleocrat]

Uh, no, that is not the case whatsoever. As I have said many times before, claims such as these only betray your inability to see between extremes. My admitting that there are legitimate reasons for limited restrictions leads me no more in the direction of Cuba than the flipside (there are legitimate reasons for reasonable freedom) forces me to anarchy.

[johnebii]

What you want is a mixed economy or a 'third way' system. Yes I do believe that if something is good then more of it would be better. If you are not willing to take your arguments out to their logical conclusions, they fall on their face. If something is destructive at 100% then it is only proportionally less harmful at lower percentages. Everything is either good or bad, this mixed system you advocate is foolishness.

[Tony63efc]

This reminds me of the definition of capitalism used by those of us on the hard left.

"Capitalism is the belief that the worst of people for the worst of motives will somehow work for the good of mankind" or something like that.

[utubehayter]

So making profit is a bad motive? Maybe you should try thinking about capitalism this way- "People who try to make money honestly will end up helping others to live better without even trying to do so." Adam Smith's invisible hand.

NOW for My invisible hand -

"People who want to help others live better in spite of best of intentions end up hurting the intended beneficiaries while the ones who pretend(dishonest) to help will make profits" (Practical socialism).

[Tony63efc]

It is hard to argue that free market economics has been an efficient means of feeding Africa. Land is owned by big corporations such as Cargill who ignore the needs of the local population and produce high value goods for western supermarkets. Price rises in the last year have given Cargill a 40% rise in profits while 100 million more people cannot feed themselves. Clearly agrarian reform with an emphasis on small farmers is needed so people are put before profits.

[utubehayter]

Actually its much more easier to argue free market economics in such a condition. But, it is always govt and govt intervention that leads to such conditions - but that is often ignored. Besides, the assumption that everyone needs to be fed is not a free market concept. Although implementing a free market system will have the net affect of feeding the largest majority possible.

[Tony63efc]

You are so utterly wrong that I wonder how many millions of Africans have to die before you see that their countries have to be as close to self-sufficient in food as possible even if this means imposing tariffs. There is no free trade anyway, western producers receive subsidies.

[utubehayter]

Actually western producers inspite of subsidies cannot compete with the cheaper third world labor - unless they keep improving - which they are not. Protectionism has a way of lulling progress and improvement. As for wondering how many millions of Africans will have to die - you are better off spending that time understanding what free trade is and how to implement it in Africa (i.e. convincing african govts to let the markets take course). That is a significantly harder problem.

[utubehayter]

Please spend your time understanding what free market is - there are many pretenders and all of the pretenders are harmful creations of statists and enemies of free trade. Eg. China.

Then you got to think about a way to convince the African people and govts to try the method - which is an impossible effort. It reduces the govt's power by a whole lot and people do not have education or information to make that sort of decision. Its a monumental task, even more so than growing enough food for all

[paleocrat]

I would never claim that America is the Utopia you envision regarding free trade. Nevertheless, my remark stands, even if one were to simply remark that we are "freer" than many... or most.

Your arguments at the end are made of straw.

a) Do I advocate that form of Protectionism?

b) Do I advocate the internal framework wherein such hand-picking is possible?

If you answer "yes" to either, then you haven't heard a word I've ever said.

In honesty, you could do much better than this, John.

[johnebii]

if even you are making these politically favored decisions on the basis of some moral, nuanced kind-hearted criteria you are still favoring the few or certain groups at expense of others so i don't accuse you of 'this type' of protectionism but you have to admit at a certain point that protectionism does certain things.

[johnebii]

By the way, it was the first 1:45 that I spent

rambling, not just the first 1:00. And I wasn't whining, just giving the folks some history on our exchanges.

[LordSomers]

Very eloquent, as usual.

But, this is the reason real libertarians don't usually quote Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say, or Thomas Jefferson...

Their economics were primitive and unsystematic. I don't think free trade and national or national independence are exclusive, though. An impoverished nation is not one people are going to be happy to live in; when we must live as subsistence farmers, we have little time to devote to art and other higher pursuits of cultural attainment.