Is Thomas Woods a Dissenter? A Further Reply, Pt. 4
Next let us turn to Woods’ comments on my discussion of scarcity as an economic concept. I again quoted Paul Samuelson who introduces the topic as fundamental to economic analysis and concludes by saying: “If you add up all the wants, you quickly find that there are simply not enough goods and services to satisfy even a small fraction of everyone’s consumption desires.” I then gave examples of those who in fact claimed that their “consumption desires” were basically satisfied and that they were not looking for a greater share in material goods, and I suggested that culture plays a part in how people view the satisfaction of their “consumption desires.” What does Woods say about this? “Samuelson’s remark is surely correct. From an empirical standpoint, it is safe to say that most people would indeed like more consumption goods than they presently enjoy. Anecdotal evidence from isolated pockets of contrary behavior does not constitute an argument, particularly when Samuelson is claiming to set forth not an apodictically true praxeological law, but an empirical generalization about the general run of Americans.” I hardly know how to begin to respond to Woods here. First, the examples I brought up were hardly “isolated pockets.” They included, for example, the majority of the population of the Netherlands. Second, is not Woods’ admission that Samuelson’s principle holds good for “the general run of Americans” an admission of the role of culture in economic choices? Most Americans do seem to have unlimited “consumption desires,” but does this have something to do with a culture in which more consumption is deliberately equated with happiness and in which we are relentlessly bombarded by propaganda urging us on to more and more consumption? In fact, consumer spending is almost made into a civic duty, for it is said to be the mainstay of our economy.
But Woods’ defense of scarcity goes farther, it seems. He observes that “Samuelson is claiming to set forth not an apodictically true praxeological law, but an empirical generalization”? So what sort of scarcity is Woods defending and how does he defend it? He writes, “Since man’s time, his resources, and his body itself exist in finite quantities, any expenditure of these things in the pursuit of some end necessarily comes at the expense of a foregone alternative. He cannot simultaneously perform or enjoy the fruits of all the ends he wishes to pursue. Time, for example, is an irreversible continuum; an hour, once devoted to a particular task, is never again available in the service of another task.” Well, yes, one will not deny any of this. But is this the notion of economic scarcity as Samuelson expounds it? That we are finite creatures who exist in time is not a discovery of economists. The examples of constraints on man’s conduct that Woods mentions have nothing particularly to do with economic activity. They are facts of man’s existence, indeed of any finite thing, as we were created by God and are necessarily presupposed in any consideration of any subject. To aspire to anything different is to fall victim to the whispering voice of Satan, “You will be as gods.” But this was not the concept of scarcity that I was speaking of.
Neoclassical economics considers scarcity as one of the fundamental points of its analysis. But could we not just as easily begin to construct an economic science by noting the bounty of God in providing goods for mankind and making that the beginning of our analysis? One of the results of the neoclassical understanding of scarcity is that it absolutely prevents us from distinguishing between needs and wants. God has not seen fit to provide the human race with a superabundance of pleasure boats. But He has provided food, usually in abundance if we take the elementary trouble to treat the soil and the waters around us with appropriate care. Of course, if we treat land and water as a gigantic trash heap or a source of quick profits, then we can hardly expect that God will make up for our criminal foolishness.
In my paper I use the term “economic science” more than once, indicating thereby that I consider economics to be a science, but a social science, or as it has been called, a “human science,” one that deals with human beings and their behavior. But Dr. Woods takes exception to this usage of mine, saying “Storck uses the term 'economic science' favorably, speaking in footnote three of 'the necessity for a non-deductive economic science of the kind offered by some of the “heterodox” schools of economic thought.' This claim calls into question just how deeply he has understood the institutionalists and the German Historical School, the traditions of thought he recommends. Members of these traditions, by and large, did not conceive of themselves as developing an economic science, since they did not believe universally valid causal laws existed in the economic order. . . . For consistency’s sake, Storck should give up trying to argue that there is or could be a 'human' or economic science. He should instead say, as the rest of his paper indirectly argues, that there is no such thing as science in these areas.”
But what do we mean by a science of economics? I quote in note number 34 the great Jesuit economist Heinrich Pesch to the effect that economics is a science since it is “a knowledge of things traced to their causes and certified by proofs.” Pesch’s treatment of economics in the Lehrbuch includes discussions of law, economic history and statistics, as well as human behavior and moral philosophy, but he does not hesitate to call economics as he conceives it a science. John R. Commons, one of the principal American Institutionalist economists, regularly refers to political economy as a science in his 1934 work, Institutional Economics. Just as we can speak of sociology as a science or of political science, without asserting that we can draw up strict causal laws in these areas, so in probably any attempt to study economic behavior one would make generalizations that could be considered scientific. Even in history, although the primary data that we deal with are particular and unrepeatable events, one can make certain generalizations such that we often speak of historical sciences. It is not necessary that we have “universally valid causal laws” in the strict sense, which is what Woods appears to require in a science.
The last part of my paper and of Woods’ reply deals with the so-called Chicago School of economists, whose most well-known representative was Milton Friedman. Woods suggests that I think that “on methodological grounds Catholics might have prima facie reason to be sympathetic” to this school. And he helpfully tells us, in a note, that the case is the exact opposite, that “If anything, there may be a prima facie case against Chicago School economics from a Catholic point of view.” But again, what did I actually say? I wrote, “It may be objected, however, that the foregoing criticism of mainstream economics does not apply to adherents of the so-called Chicago School” because they claim “a purely empirical basis” for their statements. Now Woods could not have known that in fact it was one of the peer reviewers who suggested I treat the Chicago School at length, but he might have noticed that my wording “It may be objected” does not imply any sympathy on my part or any suggestion that I find their doctrines even superficially attractive. In any case, Woods also objects to the Chicago School, and especially to Friedman’s use of abstraction in his famous essay, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” something which I criticize too. But Woods goes further and attempts to save the sort of economic deductions which Austrian economists make. He writes: “By nonprecisively specifying the existence of these excluded features, as opposed to precisively specifying their nonexistence, such theories need not be 'descriptively false' at all. Thus when Austrians contend that minimum-wage laws lead to more unemployment than would have existed without them, they are engaged in a nonprecisive abstraction that applies to all cases involving minimum-wage laws, not a precisive abstraction that would apply only to cases in which the minimum wage was a single, isolated factor affecting labor markets.” Abstraction is the means by which human minds disregard or abstract from non-essential features of things so that they can consider only their essential features, their natures. So, for example, we need not consider the color of horses when speaking of horses as such, of their nature and essential characteristics. Any science at all must use abstraction, for otherwise we could speak only of particulars. But ordinarily when we abstract we don’t mean to exclude the existence of the accidental qualities, simply to ignore them for our present purposes; we know that every horse is of a certain color, but a biologist or even a horse trainer can make general statements about horses without concerning himself with their various colors. Woods, however, relies upon an article which notes the distinction between nonprecisive abstraction and precisive abstraction. In precisive abstraction we “cut off or exclude something from a notion” as Armand Maurer explains Aquinas’ use of the term. In other words, we don’t just ignore its presence, we purposively exclude it, as if we said not only that the color of horses was generally unimportant to a biologist but somehow asserted that horses had no color. But I don’t entirely understand what this has to do with Wood’s obiter dictum that “when Austrians contend that minimum-wage laws lead to more unemployment” they can make a judgment that is always and everywhere true in contrast to Milton Friedman’s exact same judgment based on his methods. My discussion of Friedman turned on the question of how those who claim to be pure empiricists can make sweeping statements about any and all cases and how they can as part of their methodology exclude certain data from consideration because it might contradict their preconceived conclusions. But the essentially deductive nature of Austrian economics again shows up in Woods’ contention that Austrians can make a judgment “that applies to all cases involving minimum-wage laws,” for given the immense effect of cultural and legal institutions on complex human behavior, it is hard to imagine asserting once and for all of the effect of minimum-wage laws on employment.
The purpose of my paper was to show that the popes, in their teaching on economic morality, incidentally make use of a kind of economic analysis very different from that of neoclassical economics, and of Austrian economics to the extent that it shares the former’s deductive nature, and to suggest that there exist other approaches to economics which comport better with the papal statements. In his reply Woods has chosen to repeat his assertions about the limits of papal teaching as well as to seek to defend Austrian economics. The former is the more fundamental and important questions, for if the magisterium of the popes must submit to the limits that Woods seeks to impose upon it, than the popes had better just limit their moral teaching to statements such as “Be Nice” or “Be Good.” For it is hard to see how moral teaching that concerns itself with the world in which we live can avoid making judgments not only about how we ought to act, but observations about how we in fact do act. And it is Thomas Woods’ objection to this feature of papal teaching when it impinges upon his understanding of the realm of economics that constitutes his fundamental error. With regard to Austrian economics, Dr. Woods has to some degree misread my intentions, for as I noted at the beginning of my paper, I was speaking broadly of all deductive kinds of economics, not asserting that the Austrian school was like neoclassical economics in every respect.
With regard to the more fundamental point, the right of the popes to teach in this area and in the manner that they have historically done, there can be no serious debate. Pius XI’s use of the concept of “social modernism” in his first encyclical, Ubi Arcano, underlies the importance and seriousness of this aspect of their teaching and may fittingly provide the last word. He wrote,
60. Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man . . . In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
61. There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.
Entries(RSS)
Precisevly or nonprecisevly, empirically or by deduction, whichever school of thought, minimum wage laws lead to more unemployment. All one has to do is examine the available data. There are very few cases when this does not happen and for the most part these cases are explained by market inefficiencies. It is desirable for certain schools of thought to embrace minimum wage laws. But there is no school of thought that can show that minimum wage laws will in fact increase the wages over the long run in a market run, economy no matter how attractive such idea is to the politicians who in fact believe it to be true.
After reading all the articles, I am still not sure what the contorversy is, other than that Mr. Woods is perhaps demanding a clearer essay from Mr. Storck. It also seems to me that the discussion is about apples and oranges, so both of them are right and wrong at the same time. For example I notice that Mr. Woods is dealing with a classless society and perfect markets while Mr. Storck is not. Wants and needs, this is an everlasting problem in economics and there is no right answer. On the question of scarcity, again they are talking about two different things, because if something is not needed, then it is not scarce and if it is wanted then it is scarce. (I would be curious to know more about the Netherlands.)
As for the recurring references to class society, well there is no class society in the US from a conservative point of view. This is a Marxist import! Anyone can become a millionaire in the US and there are many that will lose their millions. There is plenty of mobility and the reason is precisely capitalism, but perhaps not of the variety that is pleasing to the Pope. Western Europe, South America have class systems to an extent, and I suppose Mr. Storck's reasoning has merits in ways that the Church can alleviate the injusticies. But in the example with the fishermen, if it was the US, they would have eventually figured it out. It should be noted however, that as much as the Church is helpful at times, there are those that argue that many of her policies were detrimental to the poor. They are mostly Marxists, using the very same type of reasoning about capitalism that these rebuttals of Mr. Woods are but without the Church's blessing. It is an irony, but it may explain why the Left is on the march in South America. The Church inadverently paved the way.
Mr. Bailey,
I taking you up on your acceptance of my offer and so after your last post on #3 I'm making up a preliminary bibliography for you. But, curiously, why is it the case, in your opinion, that "in the example with the fishermen, if it was the US, they would have eventually figured it out"? I don't see any reason to think that Americans are necessarily smarter than Canadians, or than Europeans or Latin Americans either.
I would say that the reason is American mentality, absence of fear of authority and willingness to work hard because at least in theory "the sky is the limit". This was true in the past. Of course what is happening in this country now is an entirely different matter.
First, very interesting discussion and I hope there is more to come. The failings of classical liberalism and its incompatibility with Catholic social teaching (never mind human nature) are rarely even considered problems these days, let alone actually discussed.
@jack bailey(#3)
"But in the example with the fishermen, if it was the US, they would have eventually figured it out."
That would seem to lend credence to claim that culture is an important factor in shaping economic structures and behaviors. Why would not the fishermen have "figured it out" in their native land if economic "laws" are as empirical and universal (transcending culture) as Storck's opponents claim them to be?
I just want to say that I'm getting a great deal from these discussions. It's late as I write and maybe I'll say some more tomorrow, as I have on the other posts.
An interesting discussion we need more of. A couple of points.
1. The minimum wage, as a practical matter, kills jobs. As economist Walter Williams says, it "cuts off the lower rung" of the economic ladder. Original research he did in the mid-1970s showed that, when the wage was increased in the late 1940s, it greatly increased unemployment among blacks, who until then had unemployment rates _lower_ than whites. The minimum wage was pushed by white-dominated unions that wanted to freeze out blacks, especially in skilled trades such as carpentry, who were undercutting white wages. The result: high black unemployment ever since then, ruining millions of families.
In a vast and diverse country such as America, with 307 million people, divided into 50 highly different states, with different demographics, a national minimum wage makes no sense, unless it's so low it doesn't matter. One of Reagan's best policies was to not raise the minimum wage, thus effectively lowering it as inflation (albeit at a lower rate than in the 1970s) crept through the economy. The result was a strong increase in black employment, and decrease in unemployment, that accompanied similar gains for whites.
2. Most Leftist parties in Latin America gained power for the same reason Obama won here: the "Rightists" were incompetent and venal. The "Rightists" also tied themselves, in many cases, to the Bush regime and its policies of inflationism and militarism.
Another reason for the Leftists' rise was because, in the 1980s, many countries, especially Argentina and Venezuela, tied their currencies to the dollar. Then a rare thing, DEflation, occurred to the dollar from 1997 to 2001 (caused by that perpetual incompetent Alan Greenspan, who in 2001 reversed the bad DEflation and gave us even worse INflation.)
The dollar dropped in value from an average of $350 an ounce (1981-1996) to $255 an ounce in 2001 -- meaning the dollar's value ROSE. (This is a mistake because the value of any currency is in its consistency. It should be like a yardstick: always 36 inches. Increase it to 37 inches or decrease it to 35 inches, and you have problems.)
The Greenspan 1997-2001 DEflation quickly crashed commodity markets everywhere, because commodities -- especially oil -- closely follow the price of gold. Remember oil at $10 a barrel and gas at 95 cents a gallon around 1999?
The commodities DEflation ripped through the world, especially damaging Latin America and Asia (hence the bogus "1997 Asian crisis"; it really was a dollar DEflation crisis, because their currencies were linked to it). The Asians picked themselves up and got back to work. The Latin Americans elected Leftists. Venezuela, especially devastated by $10 oil, elected the socialist Chavez in 1999. Brazil, which in many areas has European-level industries, elected the mild-Leftist Lula da Silva in 2002, and he hasn't been bad on economics, at least, so the country's economy has done fairly well. Other countries are mixed.
When the dollar eventually stabilizes against gold, the boom Venezuela enjoys from oil inflation will end, its economy will crash, and Chavez will be ousted.
All this is another reason to return to the gold standard. If Reagan had pegged the dollar to gold, as he promised -- say, at the $350 average of 1981-1997 -- there would have been no DEflation that devastated commodities in 1997-2001, and no INflation since then. Gas would still cost the $1.13 I remember paying in 1994, instead of the $3.13 I'll be paying today.
(By the way, the mainstream of current Austrian economists disagrees with this analysis. There was an excellent exchange on this in 2001-2002 between Jude Wanniski, the late supply-sider who spotted the DEflation, actually citing Mises as an authority; and Gary North, an Austrian who said there was no DEflation, but INflation back then. [Google: Wanniski Gary North Deflation.] I think Wanniski was right. But read the debate for yourself. After 9/11/2001, both Wanniski and the Austrians agreed that Greenspan INflated the currency. Jude unfortunately died in 2005.)
Please excuse this correction: I wrote: "The dollar dropped in value from an average of $350 an ounce (1981-1996) to $255 an ounce in 2001 — meaning the dollar’s value ROSE."
It should have been: "The dollar moved in value from an average of $350 an ounce (1981-1996) to $255 an ounce in 2001 — meaning the dollar’s value ROSE."
I don't know if links always make it on this site, but here's the Wanniski-Gary North exchange from 2001-2001 on DEflation. It's still relevant today:
http://polyconomics.com/ssu/ssu-020104.htm
Martin Kelly:
"As enunciated by Adam Smith, economics proceeds on the assumption that human beings always act in their own self-interest. This is a direct affront to the Gospels, a direct denial of Our Lord’s teaching and a direct challenge to the magisterium of the Catholic Church; one which, in my view, has never been adequately challenged. It proceeds from one man’s interpretation of the nature of human relationships and motives; and it has been divinely ordained, indeed is revealed truth, that this analysis is wrong; indeed, may be a paving stone on the road to perdition. All Catholic commentary on economics should, in my view, proceed from the assumption that Smith was a teacher of false doctrines."
Thomas Storck:
"Neoclassical economics considers scarcity as one of the fundamental points of its analysis. But could we not just as easily begin to construct an economic science by noting the bounty of God in providing goods for mankind and making that the beginning of our analysis?"
I find these two observations and the questions they raise to be profoundly important; they certainly go beyond anything I learned in economics classes and a dozen years' subscription to the WSJ. I am grateful to both writers for such rich food for thought.
In meandering through this discussion, I wonder if some well-intentioned people are not talking at cross purposes. I am reminded of several discussions I had once in Zagreb, with anti-capitalist and free-market capitalists. The anti-capitalists were under the delusion that Michael Novak and company were bona fide free market economists preaching hedonism and anarchy, when in fact they are all liberal ex-socialists who advocate state capitalism and the rights of multi-national businesses. The pro-capitalists, by contrast, believed that by showing the inefficiencies of protection or minimum wage they made their case. It is a lot like the argument between Darwinists who play at being theologians and preachers who play at being scientists.
Let us set aside the 19th century encyclicals and get to the nub: the Christian view of our moral responsibility. Without citing texts for memory, here in Greece without books, I can sum up my studies briefly. While Christ, His apostles, and the early Church, advocated initiative and the responsibility of individuals, they also laid down stiff rules about human charity and consistently denounced pleonexia--a word that simply means getting more--as a sin on par with sodomy. Whatever economic theory one adopts, pleonexia is a grave moral evil, and any philosopher or theorist who advocates it, whether Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or Tom Woods--should be repudiated. Woods is no philosopher or even an economist, but he and his colleagues at the Von Mises Institute do advocate greed, hedonism, and consumerism, and must be repudiated by any serious Christian.
But does this imply a government policy? Yes and no. People make a serious error in transferring arguments that are morally valid for individuals and small communities to the state. If the state is collectively forcing us to give money to strangers who deserve it as a right, it is robbing us of our duty to practice charity and or our duty to make intelligent decisions about the objects of our compassion. The larger the state grows, the more money it squanders and the more people it plunges into poverty. Catholics interested in these questions have got to spend less time repeating the statements of well-intentioned Popes and more on economic reality. But, even then, it is quite wrong to speak of ethically neutral economic policies. In the end, it is far better to be poor and honest under a theocratic economic system, than to be fat and greedy under a Misesian system. Misesian writers are to be condemned, if only for confusing so many people about priorities. Christ's warning against the likelihood of a rich man entering the Kingdom of Heaven applies doubly to those who reinvent the Kingdom of Heaven as a free market tax haven. The question is not Athens or Jerusalem but Athens or Las Vegas. Woods and his friends, in the last days, will be shooting craps instead of saying the Rosary.
That should be free-market capitalists.
Let me make some comments about some of the points raised above by different people.
"The minimum wage, as a practical matter, kills jobs." That it always does this I find improbable. Even mainstream economists admit that sometimes, even in the highly rare event of perfect competition, some businesses are earning "pure profits" - i.e., more than they need to keep going. They at least are capable of paying higher wages. But even if it does, that is only under the capitalist system of the separation of ownership and work. If distributism were the norm, i.e., individual proprietors and collective worker ownership where necessary, then the supposed conflict between higher wages and the survival of the business would disappear.
It was also suggested above that we set aside the papal encyclicals. I'm not sure why this would be desirable. If the Church continues to speak with the voice of Christ, then her teaching on the modern economic situation would be highly relevant to Catholics, I should think.
Pius XI on Casti Conubii is pretty clear on the duty of the state to provide welfare in some cases. I'll paste the text here, although it is a bit long, followed by some more comments of mine.
"20. If, however, for this purpose, private resources do not suffice, it is the duty of the public authority to supply for the insufficient forces of individual effort, particularly in a matter which is of such importance to the common weal, touching as it does the maintenance of the family and married people. If families, particularly those in which there are many children, have not suitable dwellings; if the husband cannot find employment and means of livelihood; if the necessities of life cannot be purchased except at exorbitant prices; if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; if she, too, in the ordinary or even extraordinary labors of childbirth, is deprived of proper food, medicine, and the assistance of a skilled physician, it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God's commands are rendered difficult for them; indeed it is obvious how great a peril can arise to the public security and to the welfare and very life of civil society itself when such men are reduced to that condition of desperation that, having nothing which they fear to lose, they are emboldened to hope for chance advantage from the upheaval of the state and of established order.
121. Wherefore, those who have the care of the State and of the public good cannot neglect the needs of married people and their families, without bringing great harm upon the State and on the common welfare. Hence, in making the laws and in disposing of public funds they must do their utmost to relieve the needs of the poor, considering such a task as one of the most important of their administrative duties."
It seems to me that those who object to the state helping those whose means are insufficient have an essentially libertarian or classical liberal understanding of the state and of human society. Everything must be voluntary and given or agreed upon by consenting adults. You'll notice perhaps the carryover into the other kind of liberalism that we have today, the kind that celebrates all sexual activity provided that that mythic being, the "consenting adult" is involved. Both kinds of liberalism, the classical sort which loves the "consenting adult" when it comes to economics, and the 20th century kind, which loves the "consenting adult" when it comes to sex, are really two sides of the same coin.
I put consenting adult in quotes because the concept really is spurious. People consent for all sorts of reasons, fear, boredom, hope of obtaining something beyond, etc. Just as Leo XIII realized that workers sometimes agreed to substandard wages because had no hope of something else - those wages are not really free and in the nature of things cannot be - how many young women yield to a man not as a "consenting" adult but for fear of losing him, force, etc. Human psychology is a lot more complicated than either classical liberalism or 20th century liberalism imagines.
Dr. Fleming: I agree with you completly on your statements on the Gospels and the practice of the early Church in regards to the sins common to the rich greed, pride, gluttony, [ not just food but all material things] envy, [ jealousy of those who are even richer] anger [ at those would defy our wishes to aquire and hold more of life's riches]. I can think of no more sobering words than those of the Gospel such as. "Love your neighbor as yourself." " What you do to the least of my brother you do on to me." "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as for a rich man to enter paradise." "Sell everything you own give it to the poor and follow me." There are many, many more to ponder as well. I think when Christ judges us all he will look to these words rather than if we agree the with Corporate State of Pius the 11th or the European Union put forth by the Christian Democrats, that Pius the 12th encouraged.
I can assure as a practicing Catholic for most of my life and as practicing Capitalist for 40 years, I thought about them a lot. That was especially true when I was very weathy, lived in a mansion, and had a big profitable business. Fortunatly God and the free market took most of that worry away from me. I Think a lot of rich men knew how fleeting wealth was, especially those who came from humble roots. Andrew Carnegie said " Those who die rich die disgraced." He gave away most of his fortune in his lifetme. I thnk others like John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford had many charitable instincts but had trouble letting go. They left it up to their descendents who, I think, have mostly made a mess of it. Even Warren Buffet wants to give most of it away. He just doesn't have a good idea to whom and why.
Von Mises and Hayek were 2 obsure academics swiming in a sea of Marxist triuphfullism. They were skilled economic observers, and writers. I believe from my own practical experience that they best described how the world works best as an economic model. They were not practicing Catholics grounded in Catholic thought. I think Adam Smith and the Austrian School gave us a lot things to ponder and study. It is for us as Catholics to sift and winnow what fits the words of the Gospel and how a Catholic with libertarian leanings should live his life. I have been reading Catholic libertarians like Joe Sobran, Chris Manion, Bob Novak, Dr. Woods and Mr. Rockwell for many years. I can recall no place where they reject the responsibility of the Gospel call to charity or honest business practices. In fact I think they would agree with most of them. If we are wrong I think we should be shown the errors of our ways with respectfull dialogue. It gives us no good to issue anthelma to the afforementioned and other such Catholic Libertarians like Lord Action. We need to study and discuss not pout. I call for a more respecfull dialoge on both sides.
To Robert II, let me assure you I missed your comment. I was speaking in the most general terms about my impression of this and other conversations. To John Marino, I have to say, while acknowledging your manifest sincerity, that you are mistaken on facts and thus mistaken also in your conclusions. Mises was an atheist Jew who regarded Christianity as just another form of socialism to be eliminated. Hayek, too, was a Jew, though one who came to understand the impossibility of grounding liberty in any purely natural argument. My friend Joe Sobran thought he was a libertarian simply because he disliked the modern state as much as I do. Acton represents the problem, quite precisely. He said as a liberal he was a bad Catholic and vice versa<br.
Let us be precise about definitions and the argument. I have no quarrel with Mises as economist, much less his (and Hayek's) critique of Marxism. The problem is that Mises pretends to be a philosopher and his childish and reductionist theory of praxeology--a mere exercise in word play--takes the moral and spiritual heart out of human life. Smith, too, is a wretched and confused moral philosopher, who lied even about the Gospels. When Johnson met him, he called him a liar--which he was--within a few minutes. Let us not deceive ourselves in this. One cannot be a libertarian Catholic except in the sense that one can be a Catholic pornographer, a Catholic dope peddler, or a Catholic Satanist. Libertarianism--the most childish form of classical liberalism--is opposed to Christianity. I only joined this discussion to argue that the enemy of our enemy is not therefore our friend. Libertarians in hating Marx are not our friend any more than socialists who hate Smith, Mill, and Mises are. As tactical allies, they have been useful in the past, and Rothbard was a good friend f mine. There are no Rothbards today. Enough with these ignorant pseudo-Catholic poseurs. They have no right to take part in a discussion among Christians.
PS I defy any so-called Catholic libertarian to engage us in a serious debate. They will not because they know they have no argument except to repeat, with Woods, the mechanical theories of Mises that are grounded in circular reasoning and have nothing to do either with human reality or Catholic thought.
@ Dr. Fleming (# 14, 15)
Thank you, Tom. That seems to be the point that many posting here do not understand.
Mr. Marino and his fellow-travelers --
-- need to know, as you observe, one cannot be a libertarian and a Catholic, for the same reason one cannot be a communist and a Catholic.
Both libertarianism and communism, as you have observed elsewhere, are left-wing anti-Christian ideologies rooted, generally speaking, in Enlightenment tabletalk, as our old friend Sam Francis put it, about "the rights of man."
One more note: Libertarians and other leftists speak in the language of "rights" of individuals.
Real Christians speak in the language of duties to God and family, and kith and kin.
Big difference. That divide cannot be breached.
Dr Fleming @ 14
Small correction. Hayek was not a Jew but a fallen away Catholic, he later returned to the Church and was even granted an audience with John Paul II.
Let me ask you a question: what are (in your view) the acceptable limits of classical liberalism, without becoming 'anti-Christian'?
Dr. Fleming: I stated in previous post that Von Mises was an agnostic Jew. That has nothing to do with his economic theories. I think most Jews are often willfully ignorant of Catholic ideas and teachings. I have read virtually nothing of Von Mises and little of Hayek. I have only read the students in essays. Adam Smith lies mostly unread in my basement. I come to my beliefs mainly through life experiences. The ideas of the libertarians seem to meet the real world to the greatest extent. They have to be tempered by the Gospels. The only stuff I have read about the economic theories of Chesterton and Belloc have been as a 20 year subscriber of the Wanderer. I have read quite a bit of their historical stuff and love it. The Wanderer has a great combination of Catholic libertarians, distributionists, and Couglinites. I think they are mostly respecful to each other. I also was for 42 years a subscriber to National Review which had many libertarian writers. I had to finally drop it when the neocons became unbearable. Buckley and his brother in law L. Brent Bozell sr. were Libertarians. Bozell a firm traditional Catholic had no problem ghost writing 'Concience of a Conservative' for Barry Goldwater. Now Goldwater turned out to be a particularly disgusting Libertarian of the Ayn Rand variety. I think we can both agree that Rand has nothing to teach us.
Perhaps the debate hinges upon disagreement (or simply confusion?), regarding the ultimate goal of our religion, which (to the extent of my understanding) is not to meet the needs of the real world; but rather the sanctification and salvation of souls. Thus, even if it could be proven that Libertarian economic theories fulfill our material needs more efficiently, papal teaching would not change, due to this ultimate goal I mentioned. And so, no matter what field we may work in -- be it science, the arts, business -- we mustn't allow anything to subvert this goal, even if it appears to conduce greater material comfort or satisfaction.
@ Mr. Marino (#18):
Yes, we can agree on Rand. I would add that she not only has nothing to teach us but also that she her philosophy, such as it is, is objectively evil.
On Hayek's background, I was misled by several published sources. According to the website on Jewish Nobel Prize winners, he was a cousin of Wittgenstein, but through W's one gentile ancestor. None of his important writings, however, are from the Christian perspective, and many of his disciples tried to dissuade him from publishing The Fatal Conceit because it implied a the necessity of a metaphysical basis for liberty, namely, God. I have this straight from the Hayekian Liggio, though he might well deny he ever said it. Libertarians, like Marxists, are constantly reinventing reality including their own reality. Rockwell even attributes to me the remark he made when I told him that a Catholic friend was describing himself as a libertarian: "What is he, a tax evader or a child molester?" explaining that people become libertarians to justify their vices.
Mr. Ezzo is perfectly correct in stating the primary goal of Christianity, but one must beware of falling into the modern Catholic trap of arguing that we believe what we believe no because it is consistent with divinely created reality but because a Supernatural being told us to. Catholic moral theology is not that different from Aristotle's--he has the same strictures against greed and self-seeking, for example, and a parallel emphasis on man's social nature and on the futility of individualism.
I have been over this ground many times in books and articles, and I do not propose to repeat myself ad nauseam. Let me just state a few of my conclusions. First, that liberalism in both its forms--libertarian and socialist--is inconsistent with the facts of human nature as they are known to history, anthropology, and the biological sciences. Liberalism is, in essence, an historical artifact, the projection of 18th century middle class men who wished to free themselves from kings, aristocrats, and priests, and pursue their own interests without interference. Whether this is a good or bad tendency is not the issue. The philosophers of liberalism--Locke, Smith, Mill--are extremely thin in their understanding of human life and usually speak, as Rousseau does, as if they began by setting aside all the facts. As a philosophy, liberalism/libertarianism is banal, puerile, and subversive of the moral and social order. What exactly is worth any Christian's attention when there are really serious philosophers to read or, if one is not a Christian, study the science. Liberalism is a kind of moral theology without God.
Now, having said that, I would say that liberalism can help to clear the mind of certain fantasies: Marxist economics, collectivist politics, and what I have called the pornography of compassion that sends addle-pated liberals and liberal Christians around the world looking for babies to rescue. To read a decent clear-headed liberal--Fitzjames Stephen, for example--has a bracing effect. Many liberals, like Stephen or Maine, were perfectly sound in the areas they studied and one can discount their tinny philosophy while appreciating their contribution. The same is true of Acton's historical writings or George Grote's masterful work on the School of Socrates. There are decent and useful qualities to European society since the Renaissance, and if we are content to study liberalism as an attempt to defend those qualities, it can be useful. In itself, however, it is wrong and pernicious
Thus, I would say that liberalism--whose hallmarks are individualism, universalism, and rationalism not only do not meet the needs of reality but are in open conflict with reality. That is why there can be only one generation or two of a liberal state. In setting up the dog-eat-dog conflict of democratic capitalism, bourgeois liberals destroyed their power base in England and within decades of their triumph, liberalism was replaced by socialism as the ruling ideology. Read the Strange Death of Liberalism.
Liberals like Mises would like us to believe that there are only two alternatives: liberalism or collectivism. But mankind got along quite well without either. Did the Medici make no money because they were not liberals? Were the Greeks not free because they were not liberals? It is a childish dichotomy, recited by childish people ignorant of history and philosophy. There is nothing wrong in making money for your family as a businessman, but there is something very wrong in thinking that wealth per se is the primary object of a reasonable and decent man's activity. Happiness or blessedness--the condition for which one would sacrifice all lower goods--is the primary good for man, and any substitute--whether freedom or human rights or great wealth--will distort not only our minds but our lives.
But Dr. Fleming, so long as we can push a button to have anything we want and take a pill to be perfect, who cares about "happiness"?
Rockwell even attributes to me the remark he made when I told him that a Catholic friend was describing himself as a libertarian: “What is he, a tax evader or a child molester?”
With all due respect, when you mentioned this exchange as a blind item on the web here many years ago, it was a tax evader or "a divorcee/or caught cheating on his wife"--memory doesn't serve me here but it was one or the other, and I found the item both funny and entirely believable--and endearing; the present form, far less so, and maybe you were self-censoring then. As a big defender of Taki that I am, for many years, especially the AmSpec years of the '90s who was delighted to see that he turned up as a benefactor, I am simply pointing it out.
Life goes on, of course, and I always appreciate to the extreme Dr. Fleming's 'control' opinion to bounce off the direction of various reactionary segments--and by all means the so called "Dissenters" will be welcomed with open arms to the Prot camp.
Mr. Fleming (#10), "pleonexia" has been defined as insatiable greed leading to dishonesty. Have Milton Friedman or Thomas Woods ever advocated this?
I also totally disagree w/your claim that Ron Paul, Joe Sobran, Lawrence Vance, etc are not real Christians because they happen to be libertarians.
A libertarian is simply one who opposes big government, whether a minarchist or anarchist. They can be Muslim, Jew, Christian, agnostic or other.
It seems like nowadays "libertarianism" is defined by its proponents (e.g. Ron Paul supporters)as either strict constructionism or anti-big government-ism but I think libertarianism has a specific, historic meaning that isn’t either of these.
@ Oil Can Harry (#24)
No, a libertarian is not someone who merely opposes big government. I opposed big government and I am not a libertarian. If you want to know what libertarians believe and advocate, go to their Web sites.
They believe in self-ownership, the rights to commit suicide and abortion, the right of self-mutilation, the right to peddle and take dangerous narcotics, the right to become a prostitute, the right pay worker's a wage they cannot live on, the right of homosexuals to adopt children, the right to sodomize your neighbor, the right to build a McDonald's in a residential neighborhood, etc., etc.
I have worked with, know and debate libertarians for more than 25 years. You are wrong.
You cannot believe what libertarians believe and call yourself a Christian. You cannot believe what Christians believe and call yourself a libertarian. There is no such thing as a libertarian Christian. It is an oxymoron.
Kirkwood @ 26
What youre describing is your own carefully erected strawman; libertarians disagree on many issues and I cannot say I personally support any of those things you list off.
To Mr. Kirkwood (#26):
"Libertarians believe in the right to build a McDonald's in a residential neighborhood." They do? Those heartless monsters!! I had no idea they were THAT evil!
Seriously, you're confusing libertarianism w/libertinism. The fact that they don't believe people who commit adultery/ use drugs/ turn tricks should be jailed does NOT mean they necessarily condone that kind of behavior.
BTW the Libertarian Party polled their members a few years back and found that nearly half were prolife.
@ Oil Can Harry (#28)
No, they do condone it. That is the "I am personally opposed but don't force my beliefs into the law" argument that is so specious it should hardly need addressing at this site.
Libertarians don't merely believe swuch people shouldn't be jailed; they believe laws forbidding those behaviors should be repealed. There's a big difference between the two.
Adultery is still a crime in Virginia, as it should be. It does not follow from that, however, that municipalities should stage SWAT-team police raids into homes to catch adulterers. The libertarians want adultery legalized, and even worse, babies sold on the free market under the guise of adoption.
If you don't believe me on the latter, check out the Mises Web site.
Walter Williams believes people should be able to sell their organs: http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/98/donate-ro-sell.htm
Undboutedly, his critique of the medical industry getting rich on organ donation is correct; but it doesn't follow that an individual should be able to sell his liver.
But again, as I have repeatedly stated in my comments to Mr. Storck's articles, the cornerstone of libertarianism is "self-ownership."
If you "own yourself," any behavior is permissible. And that's the problem with libertarianism.
Kirkwood @29:
I've never committed adultery or taken drugs but I don't think there should be laws agaist these acts.
Likewise there are millions of teetotalers who don't want to bring back Prohibition even though they don't condone alcohol use.
If you want to be consistent you must advocate that everything immoral should be outlawed: lying, fornication, foul language, refusing to attend church...
People can call themselves whatever they want but as far as I can tell libertarians believe in the primacy of the individual. I think this is approximately the same thing as what Mr. Kirkwood says it is.
This is what makes them fundamentally different from us.
The Church I grew up and was educated in believed in free will and personal responsibility for one's actions. I think that is the position of most Catholic Libertarians. I don't think you can call such people as Dr. Woods, William Buckley, L. Brent Bozell, Robert Novak, Joseph Sobran, Christopher Manion, and such old European Catholic Liberals as Lord Action and Erik Von Kuelnelt-leddinn outside the Faith. The Church has always been a place of great intellectual debate. Why are we calling people names when we should try to find common agreement? The Leftwing Catholics who reject free will and personal responsibility are the problem
To oil can (#30). A long time ago Thomas Aquinas already discussed the false dilemma you bring up, namely, that if you want to proscribe some evils by law, you're bound to proscribe all of them. Not so.
Mr. Marino,
(#32). I feel I'm repeating myself in responding to you, but just to restate it one more time: Sure you can find suspect Catholics like Lord Acton in the 19th century and plenty more in the chaos of the post-Conciliar epoch who espouse one or another form of liberalism - classical in your case. Can you cite authoritative Catholic teaching which supports your position? And surely you're aware the vast majority of informed Catholics in the past would have rejected your position out of hand.
We are not forced to choose between the two forms of liberalism, classical and modern. There is a Catholic tradition which teaches a different and better way. My suspicion is that many Catholics don't understand that tradition because they've never bothered to look into it.
Pleonexia is a basic word in Greek meaning having more or the predispositio to be having more. Begin with a mistake in words and end in a moral mistake. And yes, misesians actulally laud Mcdonalds for it's good nutritious foods. I have no quarrel with honest libertarians who do not pretend to be. Christians or try to sugarcoat raw capitalism with bogus apologetics.
To the critics of libertarianism, I will grant you all this: most libertarians seem to be an extended period of adolescent rebellion. I believe Rothbard called them 'modals'.
To tjf (#34): If pleonexia simply meant the predisposition to want more, then anyone w/ambition would be committing a sin. Every definition of the word I've seen describes it as extreme, insatiable greed leading to dishonesty.
Friedman and Woods have never advocated this, and I'd be surprised if any libertarian did.
As a Hellenist I can only tell you what words mean. It matters very little what someone may have read or not read. One begins with the facts of language rather than with a prior conception that one imposes on the facts. You will never make any progress in understanding if you begin with ideology. Leave Friedman out of it and leave out what this or that person may or may not advocate. The "Think and Grow Rich" and free to choose language of so many libertarians is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Why any reasonable man would wish to challenge this is something I find difficult to understand. Once again, I must tell you that if you refuse to look at the meanings of words and their history, refuse to study the meaning of texts, you will get nowhere. In claiming, as he does, that "praxeology" represents a reality that transcends any scientific study of human nature and in spending so much time criticizing the moral teachings of historical Christianity, Woods has put himself out side any Christian conversation. Why not simply say you agree that "greed is good" and get on with it? The alternative is to subscribe to the TLG and check every meaning in context of words such as pleonexia and pleonektes. If you don't have enough Greek to do that, then you must take the word of someone who does.
I thought I recalled that several years ago Mr. Fleming posted an article on the difficulty of a causal "economic science" as described by the Misesians. I've found Mr. Richert's old post on this matter, but if there was one by Mr. Fleming, could the Chronicles staff repost it?