Comments (31)

• Manuel

  I'm impressed. Maybe Loyola New Orleans can get something like that...or not.

  Published: November 1, 2006 10:55 AM

• Brett Celinski

  Excellent addition of Rand and Rothbard. Keep the neocons out of this program!

  Published: November 1, 2006 12:56 PM

• David C

  I'll believe it when it starts to get results.
  Being a life long Catholic and a long time Libertarian, I have had to swallow many a bitter pills about the Catholic churches social policies. Not the least of which is the philosophy that the government should provide a minimal "safety net" for the poor, which is really a way of saying a minimal amount of coercion to beat the crap out of the few who make it to ensure that if any little progress does happen, is quickly killed. IMHO, it is not a cooncidence the massive coorlation between perdominantely Catholic societies and 3rd world poverty. In 30 years of church, catholic schools, and heavy handed guilt trips, I don't think I've herd once that I'm being taxed too much, nor that social security is a ponzi scheme, nor that the government is lying to me about the value of my money. It sends the message loud and clear that for the things that really matter in my life like providing a stable home for my family, saving for my daughters future, etc ... that I get a big fat FU! Next time that another social program is proposed at the expense of the "rich" it would do them some good to remind people of the commandment "Do not covet thy neighbors goods"

  For a church that teaches that the Holy Spirit nature of God, the part of the Trinity that manifests itself in the non deterministic nature of people and the universe (read human action). One would think that they might be much more Libertarian biased. BZZT WRONG. I wish this school luck, they're gonna need it.

  Published: November 1, 2006 12:57 PM

• Charles Hanes

  Their selection of books to present on the web page is pretty impressive, including Locke, Adam Smith, Rand and Rothbard.

  Published: November 1, 2006 1:22 PM

• RogerM

  Have any of you visted the Acton Institute? It's Catholic, too, and has some great stuff. It's at http://www.acton.org/.

  Published: November 1, 2006 1:55 PM

• George Gaskell

  Wonderful! Good to see. But I can sum it up for them pretty succinctly:

  The Wheeling Jesuit Institute will promote activities which foster an all-
  inclusive discussion on such topics as:

  1. The moral structure of a free society.
  2. The role of government in a capitalistic society.
  3. The relationship between government and the individual.
  4. The relationship between intellectual and economic freedom.
  5. The various philosophies of Capitalism and economic development.

  
  Answers:

  1. Non-aggression.
  2. None.
  3. Same as the relationship between criminal and victim.
  4. 1:1.
  5. ... from Menger to Mises.

  Published: November 1, 2006 1:55 PM

• Björn Lundahl

  George Gaskell

  Good comment!

  Björn Lundahl
  Göteborg, Sweden

  Published: November 1, 2006 3:11 PM

• Nick Bradley

  If I could have one wish for the Libertarian movement, it would be for a greater effort to link upright moral behavior with the free market. That strong morals are a natural phenomenon that emerges from the market. I think Hoppe has done a lot in this realm by linking the state's articifial heightening of time preferences with the degeneration of society.
  

  
  Most conservatives are turned off by libertarianism, seeing it as a libertine movement that fosters hedonism and the atomization of society.
  

  
  Good points can be made, such as the fact that Social Security has broken the intergenerational bonds of dependance within families.
  

  
  OR how about this: convincing Christians that wealth redistribution is theft! If fellow Christians make the claim that it's different because it's a state and reference "that passage in Romans about Caesar", ask them why the state is not jutified in doing WHATEVER IT WANTS! If it can legally steal to "help the poor", couldn't it legally kill to achieve the same ends? How about murdering millionares and giving their assets to the poor? Would that be justified?
  

  
  If libertarians can make the case the the Market FOSTERS moral strength, I think we can convert a sizable chunk of the conservative movement and the Religious Right. In other words, more Mises, Hoppe, Rockwell, and Woods; less Rothbard, Block, Long, and Spangler. More LvMi and LRC, less Reason and CATO.

  Published: November 1, 2006 3:19 PM

• Scott D

  Nick has expressed some brilliant points. My mother is religious and is staunchly against gay marriage. I put forth the argument to her that if the government hadn't stepped in to license and regulate marriage, we wouldn't be having this controversy. Rather than arguing for the state to step in and legislate the issue, I asked, why not force government to give up its power over marriage?

  The controversy would then become moot, and religions would be free to take back and own the institution of marriage. Without the state to say who is or is not legitimately married, people reassert their right to think for themselves and can hold their own beliefs about how and when a marriage is legitimate (in fact, they could do that right now, but such thinking is beyond some...). It shocks me that so many Christians fail to make this leap of logic.

  Of course, the whole thing works better when we don't have a tax system that the state can use as leverage. Funny that.

  Published: November 1, 2006 6:44 PM

• Nick Bradley

  Scott D,
  

  
  I've always thought that the State uses the tax-exempt status of churches to beat them with a hammer if they get out of line. Any time that a preacher (unless they're Democrats running for office) makes a statement in support of a particular policy, talk immediately begins of revoking their tax-exempt status. And NONE of them ever endorse a candidate directly, because they will lose their status. So, if one candidate supports the rights of states to protect the unborn, while the opponent believes in abortion right up to birth, the church cannot support the pro-life candidate.

  Published: November 1, 2006 8:06 PM

• Nick Bradley

  Scott D,
  

  
  A point I wanted to make about gay marriage. In a statist system, there may have to be some formal recognition of marriage for inheritance and family law purposes. Just wanted to throw that in there.

  Published: November 1, 2006 8:07 PM

• Mark Brabson

  Marriages and civil unions should be completely removed from the purview of the state. Matters of inheritance, etc., can be handled under the common law if necessary.

  Published: November 1, 2006 8:32 PM

• Mathieu Bedard

  I'm surprised to see Rothbard in their book selections, the few catholic libertarians I knew didn't even wanted to pronounce his name because of his view on aborption.

  Published: November 2, 2006 8:58 AM

• Scott D

  I think that abortion is one area where Rothbard makes his argument too simplistically. It comes off as being arbitrary and a direct affirmation of pro-choice politics. This really needs to be acknowledged as something we libertarians have not yet figured out, for the sake of honesty and better widespread appeal.

  Published: November 2, 2006 10:32 AM

• Stone

  Don Robertson,

  You cannot be serious. How can one seriously write: "I have written the most important philosophical work in a thousand years. Read it."

  Please don't reference the Mises Institute in any of your correspondence because you are giving them a bad name.

  I don't think anyone can understand anything that you are talking about, maybe you should stick to art, or maybe find a new hobby.

  Your Robertson law is so obviously ridiculous from the outset since your tenfold rise in problems is so arbitrary as to be refuted instantly. Not to mention it is so confusing in your use of the terms "empirical solution" and "resulting biproducts of the processes of empirical reason."

  Give it up, no one cares, you make no sense. I am glad you picked up a copy of Human Action. Come back when you have finished reading.

  Your posts do nothing but illustrate your ignorance and arrogance and it is very unbecoming.

  Published: November 2, 2006 7:33 PM

• Mark Brabson

  On the other hand, at least the Jesuits are having a nice long belly laugh right about now.

  Arrogance would be an understatement regarding that last post of Don's. The good Priest would probably agree with me, considering most of the Jesuit order are extremely well read in the philosophies. I would concur with Stone in asking that you don't reference Mises Institute in your post. Although I am sure the staff of Mises has already sent a note to the school disavowing you.

  Friendly word of advice. Don't refer to yourself as author of a self made law. It makes you look pompous and self agrandizing.

  Published: November 2, 2006 8:49 PM

• Vanmind

  Yeah, the government gave me a monopoly on ignorance and arrogance.

  Published: November 2, 2006 10:55 PM

• Daniel Coleman

  Don Robertson may not realize that, by claiming to have written the most important work in philosophy in 1,000 years, he has deemed the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas (not to mention St. Ignatius!) as less significant than his own work.

  Something tells me that this won't be lost on the Jesuits.

  Published: November 3, 2006 5:46 PM

• quincunx

  'I think that abortion is one area where Rothbard makes his argument too simplistically. It comes off as being arbitrary and a direct affirmation of pro-choice politics.'

  How is his argument simplistic?

  How does a prospective human deserve the right to be an unbidden parastite living inside a real human?

  'This really needs to be acknowledged as something we libertarians have not yet figured out, for the sake of honesty and better widespread appeal.'

  The libertarians have figured it out.

  Some people just aren't libertarians.

  The only alternative to pro-choice is someone else's choice.

  People confuse moral choices and the choice of using legal force.

  Published: November 3, 2006 7:24 PM

• averros

  Dan Robertson is a crank. This is evident in his every post.

  Now, can we please stop paying attention to cranks? The only reason they infest the blogs is to seek attention of any kind, including negative. If we just ignore him, he'll go away.

  Published: November 3, 2006 10:40 PM

• Jacobsen

  Averros,

  Yes, Robertson is a crank, but I don't think he will leave till he is banned or totally discredited. He has shown quite a bit of staying power, I think it is time for the moderators of this board to decide if he is posting "intelligent and civil" comments. I think he fails on both counts.

  Published: November 3, 2006 10:59 PM

• T.G.G.P

  Don Robertson is certainly an arrogant idiot, but he is not uncivil. He has not been disruptive, he just contributes little. I was uncivil, although I think my banning was unnecessary. I guess my proxy is going to get banned now for calling Robertson an arrogant idiot, but that's no biggie.

  Published: November 4, 2006 11:57 AM

• Scott D

  quincunx:

  There you go, being too simplistic. You've defined a fetus as a "parasite", which, if we follow your definition further, might just as well apply to an infant. If a mother decides to leave her baby out in the snow, are we to agree that it's not her fault the baby can't crawl to a warm place? If she stops feeding it, it's not her fault if the baby doesn't know how to forage for food? If she decides instead to drown it in the bathtub, how is that at all different? Where do we cross the line from inaction to aggression?

  I don't reject you or Rothbard for your position, being basically pro-choice myself, but for your simplistic treatment of the subject. I recognize that my position comes not from my full knowledge of the situation and its implications, but from a calculated decision based ultimately upon my own beliefs. I do not assert that my position is true and valid beyond my own (limited) perception of the subject. I admit that my position might change if I see evidence that contradicts it.

  You need to think HARDER and LONGER about the subject to come to a solid rationale for your position, not simply twist the basic principle of non-agression around to suit a particular opinion. That sets a dangerous precedent and will do nothing to convince someone else who starts from assumptions different from your own.

  The fact that you call anyone who rejects your explanation "not libertarian" worries me as well. If being libertarian means that you worship a set of rules without accepting the need to interpret them situationally or listen to counter-arguments, then I guess I'm not a libertarian. I respect your wish to retain the purity of libertarian ideals (as defined by Rothbard), but this is one case where it seems there is some wiggle room in defining when and where to apply non-aggression. Ignoring that fact does not strengthen your own position.

  Published: November 4, 2006 6:34 PM

• James Redford

  Scott D, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard already addresses your objections in Chapter 14, "Children and Rights," in The Ethics of Liberty, (New York, N.Y.: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982):

  http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

  http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

  Published: November 4, 2006 7:16 PM

• Scott D

  Thank you, James. That's a much more detailed analysis of the subject than what I read in "For a New Liberty". I'll need to read and re-read the chapter to decide whether it adequately answers my concerns, but it shows a lot more thought than I had previously given Rothbard credit.

  Again, thank you.

  Published: November 4, 2006 9:12 PM

• Peter

  but this is one case where it seems there is some wiggle room in defining when and where to apply non-aggression

  Then, by implication there's some wiggle room in when and where to apply aggression?!? No sir; if you support applying aggression, you're no libertarian!

  Published: November 4, 2006 11:32 PM

• Scott D

  Bah, I knew that was coming. After I re-read my own post I realized it would probably be misinterpreted. I didn't mean to imply that the application of non-aggression was arbitray, but that the definition of aggression can be, or at least it can seem that way.

  Given that aggression is only justified when the principle of non-aggression has been violated (aggression has occurred), it becomes critically important to determine when that principle applies in a sequence of events. Cutting a fetus into pieces to remove it from a womb will undoubtedly be regarded as aggression by many people. They will cite this as reason to apply the non-aggression principle and punish the offender.

  The libertarian explanation to this situation, as I understand it, is that it is the infant who has aggressed upon the mother who does not want her child, even if occurs unwittingly. This justifies the aggression of abortion. Someone who rejects this idea (which is admittedly weird to the average person), would go right back to the conclusion I outlined in the paragraph above. Again, where you choose to view the violation of the non-aggression principle is critical, and that comes from you definition of aggression itself.

  I'll admit that my follow-up post above was a bit on the angry side because I felt that the response to my first comment was overly hostile. I probably misinterpreted the tone of that post. Anyway, I'm learning, and hopefully some of the lurkers on this board are too.

  Published: November 5, 2006 4:49 PM

• M E Hoffer

  Scott,

  I find the idea, that the embryo is some type of "parasite", manifestly absurd.

  Where would the logical equivalence be
  between that situation and, say, schistosomiasis?

  
  

  Published: November 5, 2006 6:00 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Scott,

  "You've defined a fetus as a "parasite", which, if we follow your definition further, might just as well apply to an infant."

  You put that as if you do not think that is exactly their position. In fact it is. According to this "libertarian" ethic, parents could intentionally leave their baby alone to suffer from and die of hunger or from maladies suffered from say an unchanged diaper or from neglect and lack of human interaction, and all of this would be quite "ethical" even if “morally reprehensible” (the parents have no ethical obligations to this parasite after all).

  Does that view strike you as intuitively incorrect, inhuman, and unethical? Me too. Here is where libertarians with this perspective fall down in principle, in my opinion: They presume that people cannot take on positive obligations to others. However, they can, through their voluntary actions. By voluntarily acting and placing a human in the way of harm, they take on an obligation to care for, or to remove this human from harm. This has several implications including fulfilling parental responsibilities or finding someone to take over these responsibilities of parenthood if one finds one's self not up to the task. It has implications in respect to the unborn human as well.

  Published: November 5, 2006 7:14 PM

• Peter

  Given that aggression is only justified when the principle of non-aggression has been violated

  I assume you mean retaliatory force is justified?

  They will cite this as reason to apply the non-aggression principle and punish the offender.

  Seems to be some disconnect here. Even if you accept that being "regarded as aggression by meany people" makes it aggression in fact, how does A's use of aggression against B give third party C the right to punish A? [And how is it an "application" of the NAP?]

  Published: November 5, 2006 7:32 PM

• quincunx

  'There you go, being too simplistic. You've defined a fetus as a "parasite", which, if we follow your definition further, might just as well apply to an infant.'

  I don't assume that fetus's are parasities as my primary principle, rather I derive it by other means, and attempt to summarize it by one word. Pardon me for not being more explicit, and perhaps a bit out of line.

  I think we will have to do this another time, in a more related post.

  Published: November 5, 2006 8:05 PM