Libertarian Follies (Part II)

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.

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?

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

test

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.

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.

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?

"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.