Libertarian Follies (Part II)

[vegaskidd]

So whats the magic fucking ratio, back before industry thats when the richest people were the closest to poorest people, i don't give a shit who has what money as long as society progresses, and people can't get rich without a wealthy middle class, because if they take all the money from the middle class then who else is it to take it from?

[dpfonten1976]

But how will I ever get filthy rich if we adopt Distributism?

[joeb0]

test

[TheZav88]

I think you too often confuse anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism. I don't know a whole lot of self-identified libertarians that say we need no government, law enforcement, or social order.

[TheZav88]

Most, including myself, just want federal control brought down significantly or redistributed back to the states, and share your same admiration for localism.

[paleocrat]

I understand the distinction. My aim is at the Austrian horde. Whether they currently dominate the libertarian landscape or if it only appears so on account of their being the loudest, my aim is directed towards them.

[gpattt]

Paleocrat, I agree with you 95 percent of the time, but I cannot agree with you here. I just simply don't understand your point of view. I don't have time to respond beyond this but I hope you will take time to put out more videos on this topic in an effort to explain your position better.

[paleocrat]

The video dealt with a myriad of issues. You may have to be a tad more precise for me on this one. That would be as helpful as it would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[gpattt]

I don't think I can agree with Distributism. I believe in free market trade. I don't think people suffer because of Capitalism, rather I think Capitalism gives people the tools they need to pull themselves out of their suffering. Capitalism seems to be intrinsic to human nature and the human spirit. Distributism seems to attempt to influence the market beyond the natural tendencies of human economy. Maybe I'm wrong. Hope this helps.

[paleocrat]

Well, Catholics don't really have much of a choice on the matter. If the Magisterium has spoken, and She has spoken adamantly against the philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism, then we are duty-bound to obey.

The Church condemning laissez faire economics, Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism, and other belief systems does not require one to advocate distributism exclusively. Various elements would be required, but not all.

There are the non-negotiables. But the song is a hit! Literally...

[gpattt]

Well I'm suprised to hear that Capitalism has been condemned by the Church and I need to do some homework. I will check the Catechism. Capitalism must be an intrinsic evil if what you're saying is true, a mortal sin.... far from being aligned with and intrinsic to human nature. I don't know a whole lot about economics, but Capitalism seems intuitively good. Any church documents or Passages in the Catechism you can site would be helpful. Pastoral teachings are not neccessarily faith dogmas.

[paleocrat]

Advocacy of Capitalism a mortal sin? The Church's disdain for Capitalism, as with Socialism and the philosophies of the Austrian School, is evident. If one knows what the Church teaches, yet refuses to obey Her, is guilty of lacking filial obedience as well as scandal, giving others the impression that the Church lacks "competence, authority, or jurisdiction" (Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr.) over men's lives, particularly in regards to matters concerning the political economy.

[gpattt]

The Church condemns pure Capitalism, or economic systems that "accept the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor". Do you think that is what we have in this country? Obviously we've got some problems that need fixed, but we're certainly not solely guided by the market. Don't you agree?

[courageousjake]

I wonder if you side with Thomas Woods' view of the current Church in his book "The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church".

[courageousjake]

Are you talking about John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus? It calls for a regulated form of capitalism. It does not speak against capitalism. It just recognized that abuses can occur.

Something about what you are saying doesn't sit right with me, because I keep hearing about obediance in your videos. There is an article called "Is Capitalism Catholic?" by Richard Bastien that I found when searching for something relating to this video. It might be worth a read.

[GuardofLiberty]

Nice try. For one, it did happen, and two, you don't know that, that is entirely conjecture.

Your "argument" is nothing more than strawmen and red herrings.

[lafther210]

well if it can work, it will last a couple of generations before greedy bastards find a way to reinstate political power.

also, anarchy will need to avoid a conflict with the socialists and communists.

Anarchy can only work under certain conditions. Heck, Belgium was a semi anarchistic state 2 years ago. lol

[paleocrat]

The problem, as I have stated many times before, is that for anarchism to work, it must be entirely voluntary. This requires a great deal of re-education, a kind of religious conversion, or a wild-eyed propaganda campaign as never before seen in human history. Even then, if anyone breaks ranks and decides to push for a coalition of like-minded discontents to establish a new state, there is little or nothing that could be done to stop them. Would they be breaking a law? Whose law? What authority?

[GuardofLiberty]

No, they need to legitimize themselves to become a state. And a people living in freedom will be hard pressed to view their would-be overlords as legitimate. Force alone will not work, this is why the state needs an ideology behind it.

Stawmen/red herrings: the cavemen stuff, mindless individualism, utopian, political power, and the lack of social order. Governance /= state.

You also disregard that anarchists just want to secede from the state and form their own society, that's all.

[paleocrat]

What you call freedom, I call license.

From a biblical and historical point of view, the state and those holding office within the state are given authority by God.

I do not deny that anarchists typically advocate some form of social order. My contention is that their doing so is grossly arbitrary on account of their espousing radical individualism and the relativism it entails.

Utopian? Definitely. Reading Mises on the paradise to come smacks of pure fantasy.

[GuardofLiberty]

The Austrians were right on everything they've said in terms of economics. Their business cycle theory is dead on.

In fact, I would think that you should be a supporter of the Austrians, because it is the state that allows industry to cartelize and have greater authority over people, whereas in a free market you would tend to have more people owning capital, though this is of course imperfect.

Biblical and historical? I'm not gonna argue those. To me, that is completely arbitrary.

[paleocrat]

The Austrians are dead wrong on insisting that economics is nothing more than a positive science, by regarding the supposed rigid nature of so-called economic laws, when denying that economics is subordinate to ethics, when insisting, as Mises did, that priests shouldn't govern entrepreneurs, that the absolute realization of individual autonomy is the ultimate goal of the political economy, that maximization of self-interest produces the best of all possible results, etc. etc.

[paleocrat]

Being Biblical or historical is (or should be) of great importance to the Christian, and particularly the Catholic. This notion that ancient orders and historical political economies have no bearing on our current situation is a rather unfortunate assumption to maintain. No learning from the past, no measuring rod by which to distinguish between progress and mere change, and a full assurance that the motto "the past repeats itself" will remain all too relevant.

[GuardofLiberty]

Of course I didn't mean we shouldn't learn from the past, I accidentally put the word historical in there in regards to the biblical.

In fact, learning from the past is why I have rejected the state. It has caused needless chaos and death for millennia.

Is economics not meant to further the interest of the individual? If it were not, why would people take part in trade at all?

To be honest, I think you're force-fitting ethics into this. Ethics are subjective. You'll probably disagree however.

[paleocrat]

I could use the same line of reasoning to say that I have learned from the past that individuals often do very bad things. Would it be wise, then, to reject individualism?

Sure, the moral and material betterment of the individual is part of the process, but certainly not at the exclusion of the commonwealth or common good.

If ethics are subjective, then why would you even wish to convince me that rejection of the state is preferable to the embrace and empowerment of the state? Imposing norms??

[GuardofLiberty]

That's another strawman I think. No one's saying that the common good isn't part of individuals engaging in trade, I contend that if individuals are allowed the most economic freedom, the public good (but this is subjective too) will follow as a positive externality of this complex process.

I'd try to convince that rejection of the state is preferable because of the chaos and needless death it is complicit in, and I don't like that stuff because it isn't conducive to human cooperation.

[paleocrat]

A strawman? Hardly. We are talking about the underlying principles of an argument here.

Sad how you folks can only reference the market when talking about the "common good."

If the "common good" is subjective, then how will "it" follow? Relativism here is... relative.

Translate: If we were to maximize the autonomy of people who (in my worldview) are born with a sinful nature, and they were to follow their self-interest, then this would best promote the common good, which is subjective. Wow.

[paleocrat]

I'd try, then, to convince you to become a hermit because of the chaos and needless death members of society are complicit in.

Why cooperate? You treat cooperation as a normative common good for society. Can't be hypocritical. Let bygones be bygones, even if death and chaos are the way of the day. At least then you are being consistent.

[GuardofLiberty]

That's another straw. I don't know how it will follow, human action is an incredibly complex process.

You can't conflate the state with society or cooperation, chaos and needless death are greatly exacerbated by this entity that can extort money en masse and entrench a power elite

Even if human nature were sinful, it is still inconsistent to give a certain group of humans an incredible amount of power over the rest, that would just allow them to impose their own sinful nature on everyone else.

[paleocrat]

Straw? The principle underlying one of your arguments against the existence of the state is, as an underlying principle, something just as true in any given society, be they with or without an entity known as the state. To call my pointing this out a stawman is absurd.

And with marriage you greatly exacerbate the possibility of divorce. In seriousness, where do you get the empirical data that societies without a State, modern societies at large, will be peaceful savages?

[rpankey]

It is the state that fails to PREVENT industry from cartelizing and having greater authority over people. Without the state, the free market is powerless to restrain the concentration and abuse of power. You can have the state, some older form of governance, the mafia, the warlord, etc., but you can't have your utopian pipedream. It's simply impossible.

[rpankey]

YouTube's comment threads suck.  That was a reply to GuardOfLiberty's comment re Austrianism.

[GuardofLiberty]

lol. Fail. Try learning some economics and then get back to me.

Nice conflation too.

[GuardofLiberty]

"Utopian pipe dream impossible." That's some argument against anarchism.

You probably don't even know that stateless societies existed in the past and were quite stable in comparison with the states of their time. Impossible?

You remain vague in "some older form of governance" and conflate all governance and social order with violent gangs (the state is just a big mafia and uses the same tactics).

Your understanding of economics is also very poor. In short, you fail from top to bottom.

[paleocrat]

Conlfation. Dammit! All the while I thought one could derive underlying themes or principles and use them for purposes of comparing and contrasting. Apparently, even if one would readily admit the differences between the two entities, principles, or themes under discussion, readily admitting that the two are not one and the same, he or she is still guilty of conflation in according to the GuardofLiberty.

[paleocrat]

Blah... blah, blah, blah, blah... strawman... blah... don't care to point out what I believe to be a strawman... blah, blah, blah... red herring... blah, blah... Nah, won't mention what I believe to be a red herring either... blah, blah, blah.

[blueskycomplex]

theocracy fail

[paleocrat]

I don't mean to be picky here, but I have a hard time understanding (much less learning from or replying to) incomplete sentences such as the one you posted. Try again.

[migkillertwo]

say paleocrat, you say anarchy will never happen. What do you think about the Libertarian argument ad Stateless Ireland?

[paleocrat]

Anarchy will not happen. Even in so-called "stateless nations" tend to be nothing more than ethnic minorities seeking freedom from occupiers. Does this mean that they would resort to a stateless society, lacking any governing body which serves to uphold customs, enforce laws, or provide military defense? Hardly.

Give it all you got, chum.

[TehBANN3D]

"Does this mean that they would resort to a stateless society, lacking any governing body which serves to uphold customs, enforce laws, or provide military defense?"

The rejection the 'anarchist' makes is to a monopoly on such services. The contention is that instead of thieving revenue for their service, firms should have to compete in providing demanded services (protection, law enforcement).

[paleocrat]

That's about as dandy as hiring police officers whose income is derived from the number of tickets they issue.

And what laws would they enforce? Who would establish jurisdictions? Who or what decides what is criminal, what constitutes due process, and what fulfills just punishment for any particular crime?

[TehBANN3D]

Except their income resides in their ability to preserve the well being of their clientele not in enforcing the rules of a monopolistic road system.

And Defense Agencies would 'defend' not 'enforce'. Presumably they would respond to the present dangers of their clients, 'acts of agression' towards them.

If you're looking for a specific doctrine they would uphold, I would presume most would give you "The Non-Aggression Principle".

[paleocrat]

Defend from what? This notion presupposes a concept of lawlessness, and a normative social ethic that is binding on a system that is supposedly built upon the foundations of individualism and autonomy.

On what authority is the "Non-Aggression Principle" binding on anyone? Who says? The collective? And who defined what is and what is not aggression? Who or what determines just punishment for aggression? On and on we go down Insanity Lane.

[TehBANN3D]

"Who or what decides what is criminal, what constitutes due process, and what fulfills just punishment for any particular crime?"

This is a bit tricky because I disagree with the conventional 'anarchist' position. I'm not certain how to respond without being a bit vague. If you ask 'other' anarchists it would be the market, or established intersubjective norms, or some form of self-evident moral framework, etc: Common Law.

(continuing ... )

[paleocrat]

Ah, the market. OK, so someone rapes my sister. The market will handle it! Someone kills my wife. The market will handle it! Someone steals my goods or is constantly inflicting physical violence upon me and my family. The market will handle it. This is Market Mysticism 101.

[TehBANN3D]

I never said it would be duly handled, I only implied that such a function would be relegated to the market instead of the state. And, as the market is the most efficient process of resource distribution, market based criminal justice is naturally much more efficient and better managed than its state-financed counterpart.

[paleocrat]

I fully understand your position here, and I am not radically opposed to the notion. The problem, though, concerns who or what determines what constitutes as a crime rather than something merely unethical, who or what should be responsible for punishment, what a just punishment for any given crime may be, and who or what has the authority in a libertarian system to have the final say that would then be binding on others.

[TehBANN3D]

I believe that only the church can serve this role, but I wouldn't say that all people 'must' use the church to solve their disputes. If they have a secular preference they want to pursue, it's their choice, even though I believe it's the wrong one.

[migkillertwo]

hahaha. I'm gonna enjoy preparing my response.

[paleocrat]

Have a blast.