Miscellaneous Musings:
Five bits to cover briefly so here goes...
--June 3rd will mark a notable anniversary in that it will be the birthday of one of my closest living friends. I refer to Tim Tull who shall turn...well...I do not want to depress him by noting just how old he is getting so I will leave it at that. Tim has had a few appearances on this weblog thus far{1} and there will probably be more if there are any subjects he feels passionate to write about that can hold a reader's attention span for more than a few moments. That basically means basically anything but detailed engineering dissertations.{2}
--Another anniversary tomorrow is one of your host's biggest tactical blunders in retrospect. This was noted about two years ago in a lengthy appended section to the original "tribute" thread which can be read in its original form here.
--The following email from another friend is of interest so without further ado...
....was up late last night, around 3:30 AM. Briefly stopped at ABC News overnight. It was the end of a report on Fred Thompson's assumed entry into the race. Didn't hear enough of the report to get a feel for it, but I found the follow-up anchor chit-chat interesting. They showed a picture in a newspaper of Thompson and his young wife. The one anchor tossed out to the other: "A lot of people are wondering if she would be an appropriate First Lady."
"A lot of people"?
I live near & work in a pretty large city, Chicago, where people certainly don't hesitate to voice their political opinions, more often than not of a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bent. Yet it's funny how I've somehow managed to miss any conversations about Fred Thompson's wife. But then, I'm sure after enough newspaper & network folk toss out that concern enough times, it's probably going to turn out to be the case.
The above example illustrates well why I distrust the msm as much as I do so for the time being that is all I will say about that matter.
--In doing some weblog restructuring in a few minutes here and there throughout the week, some adjustments were made to categories. Basically, the "personal" category and the "personal musings" categories were abrogated with all their postings moved into the "miscellaneous threads/briefer musings" categories to eliminate primary category overlap. From there a new subcategory was created titled "prayer requests/personal" to cover all subjects pertaining to one or the other of those matters.
Also created was the first category for individuals other than President George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan. I intend to create others such as one for President Jimmah Carter and one for President Bill Clinton among others but the personal tag added today was a different personage altogether -namely one Bryan Preston.
I have not seen much of his stuff in the past year or so but for the first few years of this weblog's existence, I read his old weblog The JunkYard BLOG with interest. He (and with occasional contributions by Chris Regan) constituted one of my primary geopolitical reads mainly because our views in that area coincided so often. Since early 2006, he turned over his weblog to someone else who while good nonetheless resulted in that weblog falling off of my regular reads. I have not incorporated his new venture Hot Air{3} into my regular read rotation yet, but in time I hope to. Nonetheless, the following secondary blog tag was added today:
JunkYard Blog-The Bryan Preston Years/Bryan Preston
And that is all I plan to blog on at this time except for one more thing.
--This is the 2200th post to Rerum Novarum in its nearly five year existence.
Notes:
{1} His contributions to this weblog thus far are as follows:
Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity--Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa July 13, 2005)
More Feedback From Tim Tull (circa August 19, 2005)
On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors--With Tim Tull (circa December 17, 2006)
{2} Sorry Tim but our goal here is to enlighten not confuse the readers.
{3} Michelle Malkin is perhaps the most well-known contributor to the Hot Air staff as well as being the founder of the site.
Friday, June 01, 2007
On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I added via the archives a footnote to this posting today. -ISM 6/14/07 9:00pm]
Having mentioned in months past the intention of delving into the subject of ad hominem and explaining the distinction between valid and invalid usages of the latter{1}, the intention of this posting is to give form to that endeavour. However, before this is done, a principle needs to be reiterated so that the reader grasps the foundation from which this exposition will be constructed. I also do not want to mention names in this posting as it is better to focus it on principles and leave personalities out of the mix. I trust that those to whom this is addressed will know who they are and that is all I want to say on that aspect of the issue.
Moving onto the principles to be reiterated and expounded upon, it helps to start with the root and matrix of the underlying principle behind distinguishing between a valid argument and a fallacy is what is of significant yet often overlooked importance here. This is why I outlined earlier on this weblog what it is that makes a fallacy in argumentation{2} and viewed it as necessary to deal with that matter before getting to the subject of ad homimem.
The position I have taken has been opposed at times by certain critics and in all cases, they have taken a predictable route of appealing to an authority in a fallacious fashion. Now is not the time to go into this matter again{3} but if suffices to note that an appeal to any authority apart from considering their position on its merits or lack thereof is intrinsically fallacious.
This distinction is not often well-understood even in academia so I do not generally speaking fault people for confusing the two.{4} It is only when repeated attempts to clarify this go unacknowledged by certain parties on more than a couple of occasions that I focus on it if the circumstances deem it as necessary. That is why I have in the past made this distinction but without going into it in detail; however with this posting, that is about to change to some extent.
It should be self-evident but I have learned in my life that a lot of what should be self-evident often is not. The reason for this is that people have different foundational presuppositions. Some have presumed that with the subject of argumentum ad vericundiam that I have denied that it is ever possible to validly appeal to an authority. Considering that I have explicitly stated otherwise on this weblog over the years{5} and that one critic in particular was made aware of at least one of those admissions in the past{6} the issue is not that there are experts that cannot be appealed to but there are valid and invalid ways to approach this.
Furthermore, experts can disagree and/or be wrong and this is why there has to be rationally a proper and improper approach here lest people not be able to discern which authorities may possibly be in error on their pro-offered opinion on a given matter. In none of the cases where I have been critical of critics -and even on occasion stooped to my own use of invective{7}- did I ever to my knowledge fail to interact with a single legitimate argument they made. (I say "legitimate" because when they were endeavouring to respond to something I wrote, there was no small shortage of irrelevant non-sequiturial stuff utilized by not a few of them.) By contrast, the aforementioned critics who also hurled their own invective at me in various ways rarely if at all actually interacted with my arguments.{8} In both cases (theirs and mine) there was ad hominem the distinction between them being my valid (even if questionable in prudence) usage of it and their invalid and fallacious usage.
Another way of saying it perhaps is that I believe that to fail to actually interact with an argument but instead to appeal to any premise apart from the argument as if that suffices to respond to it is fallacious. That is simple common sense grounding one's position on non-normative or objective criteria rather than normative or subjective criteria.{9} If that minimum standard cannot be recognized -and if the distinction between objective manifestation and subjective intention{10} cannot be recognized for what it is- then it is not possible to reason with anyone at all.
The standard utilized by all parties should involve an appeal to the logic of the arguments set forth{11} and nothing else. Opinions after all are a dime a dozen and even experts can utilize shoddy reasoning to come to a conclusion. Experts are often wrong -sometimes spectacularly so. This is why if one does not undertake to try and consider the arguments set forth by an authority as to how they arrived at their conclusion and opinion, then they utilize such a source fallaciously.{12}
Now then, if a fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason and nothing else, than as long as there are no flaws in the latter areas, there cannot possibly be a fallacy. I am sure reasonable people can agree on that much. For what can it be that makes an argument erroneous objectively speaking -or in other words erroneous irrespective of what individuals subjectively think.{13} I have asserted over the years that the correct point of focus here for pinpointing a fallacy is any approach that does not interact with the argument on its merits or lack thereof as determined by objective criteria.{14} To summarize it in a nutshell:
--Only the data comprising an argument --either in its favour or in opposition to it on the merits of the arguments itself-- is what determines validity or lack thereof, nothing else.{15}
In other words, anything added to the mix of a personal nature does not change the validity or invalidity of the argument itself if the latter is interacted with on its merits. This is the matrix from which a subject such as an argumentation fallacy needs to be approached -whether that fallacy involves ad hominem or not. Notice that your host did not say "the ad hominem fallacy" as if all usages of the ad hominem are fallacious. The reason for this is that such an assertion is logically specious.
Having enunciated this principle adequately enough -and it has not been reiterated as if reiteration is needed to make it true but instead to counteract the presuppositional biases of certain critics who do not seem to hear all that well the first time something is said-- it bears noting one final thing in closing. It is fine and proper to distinguish these matters as I have done but just because there is a valid approach to ad hominem that does not mean that the approach is to be recommended or not. But there is a distinction to be made here and as logic is an exact specific discipline, it would behoove those who would claim to take reason and logic seriously -particularly if they like to brag about having "high IQ's" or whatever.
Notes:
{1}
{2} A couple of threads have been posted to this weblog in the past year on this subject thus far:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof--Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
Others will be posted in the coming weeks and months perhaps as your host feels inclined to revisit this theme again in that time span (if he does).
{3} See footnote two.
{4} And there are other smart people who also do not get this for various reasons too numerous to note here.
{5} I refer to these threads in particular:
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. (circa August 27, 2004)
{6} With the critic in question, I have in mind the thread from May of 2005. I am generous in limiting it to that because frankly, since the latter was a reiteration of the thread from 2004 in a briefer format, those aware of the first thread should also have known about the second one if they really bothered to read my work as they have claimed. (As the thread from 2004 was linked to the thread from 2005 at the very beginning of the piece.)
{7} For which I in retrospect regret doing and apologize unilaterally to those so affected. However justly I viewed my usages in light of the deliberate ignoring of my arguments by said critics --who had the temerity to claim they had "responded" to my work or were interested in a dialogue-- and despite my usage being logically valid, that does not make it right or appropriate. That is the problem when injury comes from those considered to be friends -the deeper the perceived affection, the deeper the wounds oftentimes.
{8} I am generous frankly in even giving a smidgen of ground in this area considering what they objectively said and did.
{9}
{10} See footnote nine.
{11}
{12} There is no other way rationally to separate the probable validity or invalidity of various opinions without following this kind of approach. This is why appeals to the opinions or conclusions of any source -be it a recognized authority or otherwise- without considering the arguments set forth by said sources or authorities to buttress their opinions or conclusions is problematical.
{13} See footnote nine and also this thread:
On the Subject of "Refutation" of a Theory or Thesis Revisited (circa September 17, 2006)
{14} See footnotes nine and thirteen.
{15} This idea was noted in a less-developed form last year on this weblog in a few spots including this one:
This might sound like a stupid question, but which book/website would you recommend for a person that is interested in logic and the many fallacies people fall into when debating or discussing a topic?
That is a question I will have to think about because I cannot recall any offhand that deal with the matter in more than a snapshot format. However, there is a general principle that I follow and which I would recommend to you and to anyone else and it is this:
---Anything that seeks to dismiss an argument on premises other than "is this a valid premise/argument or not" is intrinsically fallacious.
That is the essence of the problem in a nutshell, the rest is to varying degrees commentary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 13, 2006)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: I added via the archives a footnote to this posting today. -ISM 6/14/07 9:00pm]
Having mentioned in months past the intention of delving into the subject of ad hominem and explaining the distinction between valid and invalid usages of the latter{1}, the intention of this posting is to give form to that endeavour. However, before this is done, a principle needs to be reiterated so that the reader grasps the foundation from which this exposition will be constructed. I also do not want to mention names in this posting as it is better to focus it on principles and leave personalities out of the mix. I trust that those to whom this is addressed will know who they are and that is all I want to say on that aspect of the issue.
Moving onto the principles to be reiterated and expounded upon, it helps to start with the root and matrix of the underlying principle behind distinguishing between a valid argument and a fallacy is what is of significant yet often overlooked importance here. This is why I outlined earlier on this weblog what it is that makes a fallacy in argumentation{2} and viewed it as necessary to deal with that matter before getting to the subject of ad homimem.
The position I have taken has been opposed at times by certain critics and in all cases, they have taken a predictable route of appealing to an authority in a fallacious fashion. Now is not the time to go into this matter again{3} but if suffices to note that an appeal to any authority apart from considering their position on its merits or lack thereof is intrinsically fallacious.
This distinction is not often well-understood even in academia so I do not generally speaking fault people for confusing the two.{4} It is only when repeated attempts to clarify this go unacknowledged by certain parties on more than a couple of occasions that I focus on it if the circumstances deem it as necessary. That is why I have in the past made this distinction but without going into it in detail; however with this posting, that is about to change to some extent.
It should be self-evident but I have learned in my life that a lot of what should be self-evident often is not. The reason for this is that people have different foundational presuppositions. Some have presumed that with the subject of argumentum ad vericundiam that I have denied that it is ever possible to validly appeal to an authority. Considering that I have explicitly stated otherwise on this weblog over the years{5} and that one critic in particular was made aware of at least one of those admissions in the past{6} the issue is not that there are experts that cannot be appealed to but there are valid and invalid ways to approach this.
Furthermore, experts can disagree and/or be wrong and this is why there has to be rationally a proper and improper approach here lest people not be able to discern which authorities may possibly be in error on their pro-offered opinion on a given matter. In none of the cases where I have been critical of critics -and even on occasion stooped to my own use of invective{7}- did I ever to my knowledge fail to interact with a single legitimate argument they made. (I say "legitimate" because when they were endeavouring to respond to something I wrote, there was no small shortage of irrelevant non-sequiturial stuff utilized by not a few of them.) By contrast, the aforementioned critics who also hurled their own invective at me in various ways rarely if at all actually interacted with my arguments.{8} In both cases (theirs and mine) there was ad hominem the distinction between them being my valid (even if questionable in prudence) usage of it and their invalid and fallacious usage.
The standard utilized by all parties should involve an appeal to the logic of the arguments set forth{11} and nothing else. Opinions after all are a dime a dozen and even experts can utilize shoddy reasoning to come to a conclusion. Experts are often wrong -sometimes spectacularly so. This is why if one does not undertake to try and consider the arguments set forth by an authority as to how they arrived at their conclusion and opinion, then they utilize such a source fallaciously.{12}
Now then, if a fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason and nothing else, than as long as there are no flaws in the latter areas, there cannot possibly be a fallacy. I am sure reasonable people can agree on that much. For what can it be that makes an argument erroneous objectively speaking -or in other words erroneous irrespective of what individuals subjectively think.{13} I have asserted over the years that the correct point of focus here for pinpointing a fallacy is any approach that does not interact with the argument on its merits or lack thereof as determined by objective criteria.{14} To summarize it in a nutshell:
--Only the data comprising an argument --either in its favour or in opposition to it on the merits of the arguments itself-- is what determines validity or lack thereof, nothing else.{15}
In other words, anything added to the mix of a personal nature does not change the validity or invalidity of the argument itself if the latter is interacted with on its merits. This is the matrix from which a subject such as an argumentation fallacy needs to be approached -whether that fallacy involves ad hominem or not. Notice that your host did not say "the ad hominem fallacy" as if all usages of the ad hominem are fallacious. The reason for this is that such an assertion is logically specious.
Having enunciated this principle adequately enough -and it has not been reiterated as if reiteration is needed to make it true but instead to counteract the presuppositional biases of certain critics who do not seem to hear all that well the first time something is said-- i
Notes:
{1}
{2} A couple of threads have been posted to this weblog in the past year on this subject thus far:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof--Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
Others will be posted in the coming weeks and months perhaps as your host feels inclined to revisit this theme again in that time span (if he does).
{3} See footnote two.
{4} And there are other smart people who also do not get this for various reasons too numerous to note here.
{5} I refer to these threads in particular:
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. (circa August 27, 2004)
{6} With the critic in question, I have in mind the thread from May of 2005. I am generous in limiting it to that because frankly, since the latter was a reiteration of the thread from 2004 in a briefer format, those aware of the first thread should also have known about the second one if they really bothered to read my work as they have claimed. (As the thread from 2004 was linked to the thread from 2005 at the very beginning of the piece.)
{7} For which I in retrospect regret doing and apologize unilaterally to those so affected. However justly I viewed my usages in light of the deliberate ignoring of my arguments by said critics --who had the temerity to claim they had "responded" to my work or were interested in a dialogue-- and despite my usage being logically valid, that does not make it right or appropriate. That is the problem when injury comes from those considered to be friends -the deeper the perceived affection, the deeper the wounds oftentimes.
{8} I am generous frankly in even giving a smidgen of ground in this area considering what they objectively said and did.
{9}
{10} See footnote nine.
{11}
{12} There is no other way rationally to separate the probable validity or invalidity of various opinions without following this kind of approach. This is why appeals to the opinions or conclusions of any source -be it a recognized authority or otherwise- without considering the arguments set forth by said sources or authorities to buttress their opinions or conclusions is problematical.
{13} See footnote nine and also this thread:
On the Subject of "Refutation" of a Theory or Thesis Revisited (circa September 17, 2006)
{14} See footnotes nine and thirteen.
{15} This idea was noted in a less-developed form last year on this weblog in a few spots including this one:
This might sound like a stupid question, but which book/website would you recommend for a person that is interested in logic and the many fallacies people fall into when debating or discussing a topic?
That is a question I will have to think about because I cannot recall any offhand that deal with the matter in more than a snapshot format. However, there is a general principle that I follow and which I would recommend to you and to anyone else and it is this:
---Anything that seeks to dismiss an argument on premises other than "is this a valid premise/argument or not" is intrinsically fallacious.
That is the essence of the problem in a nutshell, the rest is to varying degrees commentary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 13, 2006)]
Points to Ponder:
(On War)
[T]here are wars and there are WARS. Fight a small war now and you may prevent a big WAR in the future. Ignore festering problems, prefer peace above all other values, and assume that evils will vanish if blithely and resolutely ignored, and a big WAR may well result. The Civil War and World War II are prime examples of how these situations can develop into huge terrifying conflicts. [Donald R. McClarey]
(On War)
[T]here are wars and there are WARS. Fight a small war now and you may prevent a big WAR in the future. Ignore festering problems, prefer peace above all other values, and assume that evils will vanish if blithely and resolutely ignored, and a big WAR may well result. The Civil War and World War II are prime examples of how these situations can develop into huge terrifying conflicts. [Donald R. McClarey]
Thursday, May 31, 2007
On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue:
The words of my interlocuter John will be in dark green font.
Hello John:
I do not have time to write responses for all of the emails you sent. However, there is a pattern to them that I was able to detect and in responding to this note, I hope the latter is made evident to you in a reasonably irenic manner.
On 5/28/07, John Médaille wrote: One of the most frustrating things about dealing with those who claim to be "Thomists" is that so few of them every trouble themselves to read Thomas. I don't blame them; its a hard read, a job of work, and most of us are out of the habit. And it is the hardest of work, being mental and spiritual work.
I have reviewed some of St. Thomas' writings. Not all of them but a few -mostly the stuff in the Summa Theologiae but some from Summa Contra Gentiles as well. Aquinas is but one source that I draw from at times and as with all sources the value it contains depends on the subject in question.
Nevertheless, if somebody claims to be stating Thomas's position on something, simple courtesy and honesty might dictate that he actually glance at the great saint's work.
John, I am really getting tired of seeing you make assertions that I never said. Where did I ever say I was "stating Thomas' position" on the matter??? Answer: nowhere. Even if you can detect a similarity in something I said to a position of Aquinas, similarity does not mean the positions taken are identical.
And Thomas speaks directly to the issue of the relationship between natural law and private property.
This distinction was not as well understood in St. Thomas' day as it later became. There are a number of reasons for this but one of them was the small number of people who actually owned property in St. Thomas' day. There was no evidence of a sustained reflection on the dynamics of private property as they pertained to man either individually or collectively. And one could make the argument that even if there had been that to have set forth a view on property that recognized for each person a fundamental right to property would have been potentially detrimental to society as it existed at that time.
The precise parameters of what property was and how it factored into the canon of rights of mankind was still in St. Thomas' day in a degree of flux; ergo, looking to him to provide an authoritative answer on the matter is to look in the wrong place. The first significant inroads to the modern understanding of property as a God-given right took place after Aquinas' time. I will touch on it briefly at this time before going into the rest of your note.
After St. Thomas Aquinas' time, the situation that brought light to bear on the issue of property and how it is a fundamental right of man was a controversy in the early fourteenth century with the Franciscan Spirituals and Pope John XXII. The Franciscan Spirituals were a radical group of Franciscans who denied the right to property altogether -indeed going so far as to claim that Jesus and the Apostles did not own property and thus no one who did was truly "following Jesus" except people who lived as they did. This controversy brought forth from Pope John XXII a series of Bulls condemning as heretical various tenets of the Spiritualist view. And when the latter sorts tried to place an interpretation on John XXII's teaching alien to his manifested mind and intentions, he issued a Bull in 1329 which explicitly declared that the right to property was a God-given right which preceded all manmade laws{1} precisely as I have claimed at sundry times and in divers manners on this humble weblog over the years.
I had not gone over this subject in the fashion I have to some extent in this posting because my interest is to appeal to people through the intellect to grasp the cohesiveness and solid logic of Bastiat's theory on fundamental rights, not quote old papal bulls that few people have read and which no one who is not Catholic would accept as a decisive authority on the matter. And of course I do not expect St. Thomas to be some unimpeachable authority on matters that were not even on the radar screen in his day; ergo referencing him on this matter would make no sense when writing for a broad audience. However, if we want to get technical about it, the teaching that the right to property precedes all manmade law is at the very least a matter of Church doctrine. Some might even claim it is a matter of dogma but I am not so convinced; ergo that is all I will say on the matter.
He says that private property is NOT part of the natural law. Let me repeat that: Thomas says private property is NOT part of the natural law.
Pope Leo XIII said that every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. If the right exists by nature then it is a matter pertaining to the nature of man himself.
Thomas does (like the Distributists) give a spirited defense of private property, but it is a pragmatic defense, that is, based on the very praxis which your blog rejects.
What is my "blog praxis" John??? You have so admirably misrepresented me up to this point so I have to wonder of what value your opinion of what my "blog praxis" is should be weighted.
Further, if you are going to resort to Thomas's view of the natural law, you might have read what he says.
You continue the straw man I see...
(Thomas is ignored more by Thomists than by anti-thomists; the anti's have to read him to oppose him; the Thomists state any silly thing that comes into their heads and call it "Thomist.") News flash: in Thomas, the natural law is not fixed. Repeat: NOT fixed. Only the first principle (the good is to be done and evil is to be avoided) and the basic goods are fixed. Everything else can change, and that in four ways: by addition and subtraction; by knowledge and (amazingly) by rectitude.
I did not even mention St. Thomas so this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand. Now it is possible that my use of the term natural law was incorrect but either way, my point has been that the rights to life, faculties, and production are God-given. This is why your distributivist scheme for stealing people's property and redistributing it to others is so repugnant to me.
To steal someone's property is wrong John and it does not matter what excuses you give for doing it. Your attempted "justifications" are all based on the same kind of normative rationale that people use to justify situation ethics.
Now, its all very well for you to claim that property is part of the natural law and the natural law is unchanging; you are free to believe this and many do. They may be right and they may be wrong. But what you are not free to do, if you are honest, is claim that this is Thomas's view; it is not, he denies it outright.
Where did I on the issues in question make any reference whatsoever to St. Thomas prior to this very note???
Since you are such a great Thomist, I won't bother to give you the citations, since you already know where to look. But if it has slipped your memory, write me back and I will give you the exact citations.
Again, where did I say that I was quoting or referencing St. Thomas???
As far as theory goes, theory, as I said, can prove anything; one can start with any "principles" one likes to prove any pet theory one likes.
One can start with the principle that stealing people's property is okay and build an economic system around it as well. That is not how the distributivists consciously approached it but the end result is the same despite their (presumably) good intentions.
That's how we get the Theory of Evolution: positing principles that cannot in practice be tested.
Actually, there are several evolutionary hypotheses which have been tested in some situations John -and a few of them are legitimate theories. But to go into that here would be to get offtrack.
But theory needs to be tested by practice.
Ideally theory should be tested by practice this is true.
Logical coherence does not speak to truth, only to formal validity, which is something else. This is Logic 101.
Logic 101 includes the law of non-contradiction John. And a fundamental element of truth is lack of formal contradiction. Now it is true that merely passing this test does not make a position true; however, if a position fails this test, there is no reason to give it the time of day. Another way of saying it is this:
--Reason and logic work more as a verifier of what is not true than what is true.
And when a position contains formal contradiction, that fact in and of itself means that the latter position need not be given any more of one's time for consideration.
Everybody's got great theories; personally I like to see them in practice. Theory and practice complement each other. Theory without praxis is dead; praxis without theory is blind. To choose one or the other is to choose death or blindness.
I do not see why there is a necessary requirement of choosing between them John.
As to whether there is a dichotomy between Catholicism and Capitalism, you might consult the Social Encyclicals, which never have a kind word to say for Capitalism. (Some will cite paragraph 42 of CA, but the pope cannot sustain his praise even for a single sentence.)
I will get to this in a moment.
You might consult one encyclical in particular, what's it's name? Oh yes, Rerum Novarum, which is clearly a condemnation of Liberalism and its evil twin, Socialism.
I quoted it in the last post written to respond to you and in fact it does not countenance your view on the matter as was demonstrated.
Of course, it may have slipped your notice that "Liberalism" is the 19th century term for "capitalism."
It is not that simplistic John however much you may wish it was.
That later term was only used by Marxists and didn't achieve wide currency until the 20th century.
Let's see: In which century was RN written? Gee, that's a hard one.
John, Pope Leo XIII was critical of a form of capitalism without a moral component to it. (What John Paul II called "unbridled capitalism.") Or as Pope John Paul II wrote in Centessimus Annus referencing the encyclical you refer to:
[C]an it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Centessimus Annus 42 (circa May 15, 1991)]
No matter how you dress it up, if your schemes involve the taking of a private party's property from them to give to another private party you have endorsed a violation of the seventh commandment. And your attempts to justify it because you believe that the second party will make a better use of the property is no different than Walmart claiming that the state and federal governments should allow them to steal Farmer Brown's land because they would collect more tax monies from Walmart than they would from Farmer Brown.{4}
In sum, you may believe what you like, to be sure, and as a blogger there is no one to challenge you in public.
You will believe whatever you want John. I have often been challenged but for some reason, those who want to challenge me have always shirked from having their own presuppositions challenged. Thus far, you have refused to face up to what I see as the one significant glaring problem with your methodology: that you justify theft of property. You also keep referring to St. Thomas as if somehow every view of St. Thomas is beyond dispute. I no more agree with his view on property than I do his view of women.{5} But that is neither here nor there.
Furthermore, your continual misrepresentation of my view is disturbing. It is as if you have gone into this with a preconceived "template" of what I supposedly "believe" and you are operating from it instead of actually reading what I have written. This is such a fundamental violation of what authentic dialogue consists of that it is not even funny.
But to claim the authority of RN or Thomas when they say the precise opposite of what you say is intellectually shabby and morally dishonest.
Now you are trying to wrap up my citation of Rerum Novarum (the encyclical) into a reference to Thomas. Nice try John but as I noted in the citation of the previous posting, the text of the encyclical itself does not support your position.
It is true that this post sounds more testy than it ought, and I apologize for that, but it results from a lifetime of frustration with "Thomists" who have never cracked the Summas, and "cite" him as an authority in contradiction to the great saint's own thoughts.
Now you are accusing me of "never cracking the Summas" and "citing Thomas as an authority" when the only references I have made to St. Thomas on these subject is in responding to you in this very note.
John, I am beyond tired of pointing out where you have demonstrated that you have not bothered to read what I wrote. I do not know whom this "Richard" you referred to earlier was but kindly do not presume that his views and mine are the same and then respond to him and pass it off as if you are responding to me. Should you change your mind and actually decide to give authentic dialogue a go, then I will consider carrying this thread forward with you. But not until then. I leave you with a few points to ponder below.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?...
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850)]
[E]very man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation... It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession. [Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 1891)]
Notes:
{1} [T]hat lordship of temporal things can not have been given to men by any human law but only by divine law is clear. For it is certain that no one can give a thing except the person to whom it belongs, or another by his will. And without doubt God was lord of all temporal things, either by right of creation, because he created them from nothing, or by right of making, because he had made them from his material; therefore no king could make ordinances concerning the lordship of those things except by God's will. Accordingly, it is clear that lordship of temporal things was brought in neither by the primeval law of nature (if we put that for the law common to all living beings, since that law does not prescribe anything, but inclines or steers toward certain things to be done in general by all living beings), nor by the law of nations, nor by the law of kings or emperors. Rather, as is clear in Genesis 1[:28-30], it was conferred on our first parents by God, who was and is the lord of those things; Adam, while he was alone---that is, before Eve was formed---was, it seems, alone the lord of those things, as was shown above. [Pope John XXII: Bull Quia Vir Reprobus (circa November 16, 1329)]
{2} I have in fact developed Bastiat's theory further in light of the Catholic moral and ethical principle of just public order as defined by Dignitatis Humanae but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{3} That is not to say that eminent domain in all cases is unjust. However, eminent domain can only be justified when it involves the appropriation of property for public use and where the owner is given just compensation for it. Frankly, in such a situation I am of the opinion that the owner deserves more than market value for there should be a value placed on the inconvenience of disenfranchisement in these matters over and above the market value of the property in question. The latter would also make appeals to eminent domain by public authorities less likely because of the requirement to pay above market price for the property in question.
{4} I do not intend in the references to Walmart above to take a position laudatory or condemning of them in any respect whatsoever apart from the example so noted above where (as I hope is evident) I do not approve of.
{5} Or have you forgotten about this gem???
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist , as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). [LINK]
By the way, he bases his view on that of "the Philosopher" whom anyone familiar with Aquinas knows is a reference to Aristotle.
I should note briefly that I do not post the above example from the Summa Theologiae to ridicule St. Thomas but instead to point out that he has his limitations as any authoritative source does. And in his case, science and economics are not areas where his judgment has authority as it does in many other areas.
The words of my interlocuter John will be in dark green font.
Hello John:
I do not have time to write responses for all of the emails you sent. However, there is a pattern to them that I was able to detect and in responding to this note, I hope the latter is made evident to you in a reasonably irenic manner.
On 5/28/07, John Médaille wrote: One of the most frustrating things about dealing with those who claim to be "Thomists" is that so few of them every trouble themselves to read Thomas. I don't blame them; its a hard read, a job of work, and most of us are out of the habit. And it is the hardest of work, being mental and spiritual work.
I have reviewed some of St. Thomas' writings. Not all of them but a few -mostly the stuff in the Summa Theologiae but some from Summa Contra Gentiles as well. Aquinas is but one source that I draw from at times and as with all sources the value it contains depends on the subject in question.
Nevertheless, if somebody claims to be stating Thomas's position on something, simple courtesy and honesty might dictate that he actually glance at the great saint's work.
John, I am really getting tired of seeing you make assertions that I never said. Where did I ever say I was "stating Thomas' position" on the matter??? Answer: nowhere. Even if you can detect a similarity in something I said to a position of Aquinas, similarity does not mean the positions taken are identical.
And Thomas speaks directly to the issue of the relationship between natural law and private property.
This distinction was not as well understood in St. Thomas' day as it later became. There are a number of reasons for this but one of them was the small number of people who actually owned property in St. Thomas' day. There was no evidence of a sustained reflection on the dynamics of private property as they pertained to man either individually or collectively. And one could make the argument that even if there had been that to have set forth a view on property that recognized for each person a fundamental right to property would have been potentially detrimental to society as it existed at that time.
The precise parameters of what property was and how it factored into the canon of rights of mankind was still in St. Thomas' day in a degree of flux; ergo, looking to him to provide an authoritative answer on the matter is to look in the wrong place. The first significant inroads to the modern understanding of property as a God-given right took place after Aquinas' time. I will touch on it briefly at this time before going into the rest of your note.
After St. Thomas Aquinas' time, the situation that brought light to bear on the issue of property and how it is a fundamental right of man was a controversy in the early fourteenth century with the Franciscan Spirituals and Pope John XXII. The Franciscan Spirituals were a radical group of Franciscans who denied the right to property altogether -indeed going so far as to claim that Jesus and the Apostles did not own property and thus no one who did was truly "following Jesus" except people who lived as they did. This controversy brought forth from Pope John XXII a series of Bulls condemning as heretical various tenets of the Spiritualist view. And when the latter sorts tried to place an interpretation on John XXII's teaching alien to his manifested mind and intentions, he issued a Bull in 1329 which explicitly declared that the right to property was a God-given right which preceded all manmade laws{1} precisely as I have claimed at sundry times and in divers manners on this humble weblog over the years.
I had not gone over this subject in the fashion I have to some extent in this posting because my interest is to appeal to people through the intellect to grasp the cohesiveness and solid logic of Bastiat's theory on fundamental rights, not quote old papal bulls that few people have read and which no one who is not Catholic would accept as a decisive authority on the matter. And of course I do not expect St. Thomas to be some unimpeachable authority on matters that were not even on the radar screen in his day; ergo referencing him on this matter would make no sense when writing for a broad audience. However, if we want to get technical about it, the teaching that the right to property precedes all manmade law is at the very least a matter of Church doctrine. Some might even claim it is a matter of dogma but I am not so convinced; ergo that is all I will say on the matter.
He says that private property is NOT part of the natural law. Let me repeat that: Thomas says private property is NOT part of the natural law.
Pope Leo XIII said that every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. If the right exists by nature then it is a matter pertaining to the nature of man himself.
Thomas does (like the Distributists) give a spirited defense of private property, but it is a pragmatic defense, that is, based on the very praxis which your blog rejects.
What is my "blog praxis" John??? You have so admirably misrepresented me up to this point so I have to wonder of what value your opinion of what my "blog praxis" is should be weighted.
Further, if you are going to resort to Thomas's view of the natural law, you might have read what he says.
You continue the straw man I see...
(Thomas is ignored more by Thomists than by anti-thomists; the anti's have to read him to oppose him; the Thomists state any silly thing that comes into their heads and call it "Thomist.") News flash: in Thomas, the natural law is not fixed. Repeat: NOT fixed. Only the first principle (the good is to be done and evil is to be avoided) and the basic goods are fixed. Everything else can change, and that in four ways: by addition and subtraction; by knowledge and (amazingly) by rectitude.
I did not even mention St. Thomas so this is all irrelevant to the subject at hand. Now it is possible that my use of the term natural law was incorrect but either way, my point has been that the rights to life, faculties, and production are God-given. This is why your distributivist scheme for stealing people's property and redistributing it to others is so repugnant to me.
To steal someone's property is wrong John and it does not matter what excuses you give for doing it. Your attempted "justifications" are all based on the same kind of normative rationale that people use to justify situation ethics.
Now, its all very well for you to claim that property is part of the natural law and the natural law is unchanging; you are free to believe this and many do. They may be right and they may be wrong. But what you are not free to do, if you are honest, is claim that this is Thomas's view; it is not, he denies it outright.
Where did I on the issues in question make any reference whatsoever to St. Thomas prior to this very note???
Since you are such a great Thomist, I won't bother to give you the citations, since you already know where to look. But if it has slipped your memory, write me back and I will give you the exact citations.
Again, where did I say that I was quoting or referencing St. Thomas???
As far as theory goes, theory, as I said, can prove anything; one can start with any "principles" one likes to prove any pet theory one likes.
One can start with the principle that stealing people's property is okay and build an economic system around it as well. That is not how the distributivists consciously approached it but the end result is the same despite their (presumably) good intentions.
That's how we get the Theory of Evolution: positing principles that cannot in practice be tested.
Actually, there are several evolutionary hypotheses which have been tested in some situations John -and a few of them are legitimate theories. But to go into that here would be to get offtrack.
But theory needs to be tested by practice.
Ideally theory should be tested by practice this is true.
Logical coherence does not speak to truth, only to formal validity, which is something else. This is Logic 101.
Logic 101 includes the law of non-contradiction John. And a fundamental element of truth is lack of formal contradiction. Now it is true that merely passing this test does not make a position true; however, if a position fails this test, there is no reason to give it the time of day. Another way of saying it is this:
--Reason and logic work more as a verifier of what is not true than what is true.
And when a position contains formal contradiction, that fact in and of itself means that the latter position need not be given any more of one's time for consideration.
Everybody's got great theories; personally I like to see them in practice. Theory and practice complement each other. Theory without praxis is dead; praxis without theory is blind. To choose one or the other is to choose death or blindness.
I do not see why there is a necessary requirement of choosing between them John.
As to whether there is a dichotomy between Catholicism and Capitalism, you might consult the Social Encyclicals, which never have a kind word to say for Capitalism. (Some will cite paragraph 42 of CA, but the pope cannot sustain his praise even for a single sentence.)
I will get to this in a moment.
You might consult one encyclical in particular, what's it's name? Oh yes, Rerum Novarum, which is clearly a condemnation of Liberalism and its evil twin, Socialism.
I quoted it in the last post written to respond to you and in fact it does not countenance your view on the matter as was demonstrated.
Of course, it may have slipped your notice that "Liberalism" is the 19th century term for "capitalism."
It is not that simplistic John however much you may wish it was.
That later term was only used by Marxists and didn't achieve wide currency until the 20th century.
Let's see: In which century was RN written? Gee, that's a hard one.
John, Pope Leo XIII was critical of a form of capitalism without a moral component to it. (What John Paul II called "unbridled capitalism.") Or as Pope John Paul II wrote in Centessimus Annus referencing the encyclical you refer to:
[C]an it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Centessimus Annus 42 (circa May 15, 1991)]
In other words, depending on how the term or concept is understood the answer to be given would vary. This is a very complex issue and not admitting of the simplistic caricatures propounded by the distributivist weltanschauung. But what is clear is that there must be a moral component to any economic system proposed. Indeed any economic system shorn of a moral component to it is worthy of censure. The problem is, you are presuming that capitalism is necessarily bereft of a moral component whereas distributivism somehow is intrinsically not.
It seems to me that you and your fellow distributivists do not recognize that economic and social conditions are not static nor are the terms and concepts related to them. For example, you claim my approach is "more capitalist than Catholic" and then you raise in this note the kind of "unbridled capitalism" (cf. John Paul II) Leo XIII spoke of as if it is the only capitalist model. This is a significant problem with your methodology as you buy into the misunderstandings on this matter that plagued Hilare Belloc and others who erred along the same lines he did.
I will not from this point forward be irenic if you in any way whatsoever state or imply that my support of certain capitalist models is an endorsement of "unbridled capitalism." Indeed, I have never in my life promoted such a concept and my concern for the role of law in a just society by implication outlaws such a presumption. Nor for that matter am I aware of any prominent Catholic economic writers who have lauded that sort of capitalist model. This is why it is difficult to talk with you "distributivist" sorts because to a man you define capitalism in that fashion and then appear to shoehorn all advocates of any model of capitalism into the same boat.
Furthermore, I want to remind you of something you said in a previous email:
The second thing I would do is to be sure I have stated the opposing argument correctly. I tell my students that they may not argue with a position until they understand it on its own terms. And the test of whether they understand a position is whether they can state the opponents position in a way that the opponent would recognize it as his own. For samples of how to do this, I direct them to the Summa Theologica, which always states the opposing position before stating the author's, and states it with great accuracy and full knowledge of that opinion. To do anything less is to commit the logical fallacy called the straw man argument. This fallacy is not merely an intellectual failing, but a moral one, specifically the moral failing of cowardice; people fight straw men because they are too weak, intellectually and morally, to fight real ones.
If you do not bother to understand the position of those you criticize -if you continue to define their views in ways that they do not recognize or advocate- than you are contradicting your own principle as noted above.
As to whether you regard property as an absolute right,
John, I never said the fundamental rights are absolute. However, they cannot in strictest justice be taken away justly from anyone who has not committed a crime against someone else in those same areas. Taking from one person to give to another is a perversion of the law John. It does not matter if an individual does it or if the state does it: in both cases there is a perversion of the law involved.
you claim not to, but within a few paragraphs you say that it can only be distributed with the consent of current owners. How does that differ from claiming it is absolute?
If I own a property and I agree to give it to you, as it is my property, I have the right to do that. You however do not have the right to steal my property from me. If you did and I took you to court, I would have the right to sue for just compensation. If in getting that just compensation it meant you had to hand over some of your property in addition, you would have no grounds for complaint because of the crime you committed against me entitling me to just remedy.
The property owners could voluntarily distribute property as part of their absolute rights, so moral limitation doesn't figure into it.
A person can do with their property what they like within certain limits. One of those limits is what is called the "common good" which Bastiat recognized at least implicitly in his 1850 synthesis. Another is a concept that did not explicitly exist in Bastiat's time but which is a Catholic principle incorporated into Dignitatis Humanae and that is what is called "just public order." The latter is an objective verifying criteria to balance out the criteria of "common good" which to some extent (and taken by itself) is prone to subjectivist rationale.{2}
For example, if I wanted to build a nuclear reactor on my property (assuming I could), the state would have a right to deny me my project because of the endangering of the common good of my neighbours under what can be called "just public order" resulting from my endeavour. However, if the state wanted to take my property and give it to Walmart to build another super mall, that would be a violation of my right to property and a perversion of law. The reason for the latter is it would be the taking of private property to sell to another party which does not involve the common good but instead the enrichment of the latter party at the expense of the former. At least in the extraordinary circumstances in which eminent domain can be justified the beneficiary in question is the public at large.{3}
And you object that "large" and "small" cannot be figured precisely, and hence the terms cannot be used at all. But that is true of ALL prudential judgments. They are situational and judgmental. To advance you principle is to do away with prudence, the mother of all virtues.
I see. And it is "prudent" in your mind to steal people's property and give it to another??? I find this very notion heinous John. I remind you of what the Roman Catechism said about stealing:
We shall begin with the prohibitory part of the Commandment, Thou shalt not steal. It is to be observed, that by the word steal is understood not only the taking away of anything from its rightful owner, privately and without his consent , but also the possession of that which belongs to another, contrary to the will, although not without the knowledge, of the true owner; else we are prepared to say that He who prohibits theft does not also prohibit robbery, which is accomplished by violence and injustice, whereas, according to St. Paul, extortioners shall not possess the kingdom of God, and their very company and ways should be shunned, as the same Apostle writes.
But though robbery is a greater sin than theft, inasmuch as it not only deprives another of his property, but also offers violence and insult to him; yet it cannot be a matter of surprise that the divine prohibition is expressed under the milder word, steal, instead of rob. There was good reason for this, since theft is more general and of wider extent than robbery, a crime which only they can commit who are superior to their neighbour in brute force and power. Furthermore, it is obvious that when lesser crimes are forbidden, greater enormities of the same sort are also prohibited.
The unjust possession and use of what belongs to another are expressed by different names, according to the diversity of the objects taken without the consent and knowledge of the owners To take any private property from a private individual is called theft; from the public, peculation. To enslave a freeman, or appropriate the slave of another is called man-stealing. To steal anything sacred is called sacrilege a crime most enormous and sinful, yet so common in our days that what piety and wisdom had set aside for the necessary expenses of divine worship, for the support of the ministers of religion, and the use of the poor is employed in satisfying individual avarice and the worst passions. [Roman Catechism: Instruction on the Seventh Commandment (circa 1566)]But though robbery is a greater sin than theft, inasmuch as it not only deprives another of his property, but also offers violence and insult to him; yet it cannot be a matter of surprise that the divine prohibition is expressed under the milder word, steal, instead of rob. There was good reason for this, since theft is more general and of wider extent than robbery, a crime which only they can commit who are superior to their neighbour in brute force and power. Furthermore, it is obvious that when lesser crimes are forbidden, greater enormities of the same sort are also prohibited.
No matter how you dress it up, if your schemes involve the taking of a private party's property from them to give to another private party you have endorsed a violation of the seventh commandment. And your attempts to justify it because you believe that the second party will make a better use of the property is no different than Walmart claiming that the state and federal governments should allow them to steal Farmer Brown's land because they would collect more tax monies from Walmart than they would from Farmer Brown.{4}
In sum, you may believe what you like, to be sure, and as a blogger there is no one to challenge you in public.
You will believe whatever you want John. I have often been challenged but for some reason, those who want to challenge me have always shirked from having their own presuppositions challenged. Thus far, you have refused to face up to what I see as the one significant glaring problem with your methodology: that you justify theft of property. You also keep referring to St. Thomas as if somehow every view of St. Thomas is beyond dispute. I no more agree with his view on property than I do his view of women.{5} But that is neither here nor there.
Furthermore, your continual misrepresentation of my view is disturbing. It is as if you have gone into this with a preconceived "template" of what I supposedly "believe" and you are operating from it instead of actually reading what I have written. This is such a fundamental violation of what authentic dialogue consists of that it is not even funny.
But to claim the authority of RN or Thomas when they say the precise opposite of what you say is intellectually shabby and morally dishonest.
Now you are trying to wrap up my citation of Rerum Novarum (the encyclical) into a reference to Thomas. Nice try John but as I noted in the citation of the previous posting, the text of the encyclical itself does not support your position.
It is true that this post sounds more testy than it ought, and I apologize for that, but it results from a lifetime of frustration with "Thomists" who have never cracked the Summas, and "cite" him as an authority in contradiction to the great saint's own thoughts.
Now you are accusing me of "never cracking the Summas" and "citing Thomas as an authority" when the only references I have made to St. Thomas on these subject is in responding to you in this very note.
John, I am beyond tired of pointing out where you have demonstrated that you have not bothered to read what I wrote. I do not know whom this "Richard" you referred to earlier was but kindly do not presume that his views and mine are the same and then respond to him and pass it off as if you are responding to me. Should you change your mind and actually decide to give authentic dialogue a go, then I will consider carrying this thread forward with you. But not until then. I leave you with a few points to ponder below.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?...
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850)]
[E]very man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation... It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession. [Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 1891)]
Notes:
{1} [T]hat lordship of temporal things can not have been given to men by any human law but only by divine law is clear. For it is certain that no one can give a thing except the person to whom it belongs, or another by his will. And without doubt God was lord of all temporal things, either by right of creation, because he created them from nothing, or by right of making, because he had made them from his material; therefore no king could make ordinances concerning the lordship of those things except by God's will. Accordingly, it is clear that lordship of temporal things was brought in neither by the primeval law of nature (if we put that for the law common to all living beings, since that law does not prescribe anything, but inclines or steers toward certain things to be done in general by all living beings), nor by the law of nations, nor by the law of kings or emperors. Rather, as is clear in Genesis 1[:28-30], it was conferred on our first parents by God, who was and is the lord of those things; Adam, while he was alone---that is, before Eve was formed---was, it seems, alone the lord of those things, as was shown above. [Pope John XXII: Bull Quia Vir Reprobus (circa November 16, 1329)]
{2} I have in fact developed Bastiat's theory further in light of the Catholic moral and ethical principle of just public order as defined by Dignitatis Humanae but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{3} That is not to say that eminent domain in all cases is unjust. However, eminent domain can only be justified when it involves the appropriation of property for public use and where the owner is given just compensation for it. Frankly, in such a situation I am of the opinion that the owner deserves more than market value for there should be a value placed on the inconvenience of disenfranchisement in these matters over and above the market value of the property in question. The latter would also make appeals to eminent domain by public authorities less likely because of the requirement to pay above market price for the property in question.
{4} I do not intend in the references to Walmart above to take a position laudatory or condemning of them in any respect whatsoever apart from the example so noted above where (as I hope is evident) I do not approve of.
{5} Or have you forgotten about this gem???
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist , as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). [LINK]
By the way, he bases his view on that of "the Philosopher" whom anyone familiar with Aquinas knows is a reference to Aristotle.
I should note briefly that I do not post the above example from the Summa Theologiae to ridicule St. Thomas but instead to point out that he has his limitations as any authoritative source does. And in his case, science and economics are not areas where his judgment has authority as it does in many other areas.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On a Fallacy of the Whig Historian)
[Prefatory Note: This an extension of a rather serendipitous weblog series on the fallacies of the whig view of history. For those not familiar with this topic, see this thread and the ones accompanying it for an explanation. For those that are, here is the latest installment in the series -ISM.]
Behind all the fallacies of the whig historian there lies the passionate desire to come to a judgement of values, to make history answer questions and decide issues and to give the historian the last word in a controversy. He imagines that he is inconclusive unless he can give a verdict; and studying Protestant and Catholic in the sixteenth century he feels that loose threads are still left hanging unless he can show which party was in the right. He wishes to come to a general proposition that can be held as a truth demonstrated by history, a lesson that can be taken away and pondered apart from the accidents of a particular historical episode; and unless he can attain to something like this he feels that he has been working at a sum which had no answer, he has been wasting himself upon mere processes, he has been watching complication and change for the mere sake of complication and change. Yet this, which he seems to disparage, is precisely the function of the historian. The eliciting of general truths or of propositions claiming universal validity is the one kind of consummation which it is beyond the competence of history to achieve. [Herbert Butterfield -From The Whig Interpretation of History (c. 1931)]
(On a Fallacy of the Whig Historian)
[Prefatory Note: This an extension of a rather serendipitous weblog series on the fallacies of the whig view of history. For those not familiar with this topic, see this thread and the ones accompanying it for an explanation. For those that are, here is the latest installment in the series -ISM.]
Behind all the fallacies of the whig historian there lies the passionate desire to come to a judgement of values, to make history answer questions and decide issues and to give the historian the last word in a controversy. He imagines that he is inconclusive unless he can give a verdict; and studying Protestant and Catholic in the sixteenth century he feels that loose threads are still left hanging unless he can show which party was in the right. He wishes to come to a general proposition that can be held as a truth demonstrated by history, a lesson that can be taken away and pondered apart from the accidents of a particular historical episode; and unless he can attain to something like this he feels that he has been working at a sum which had no answer, he has been wasting himself upon mere processes, he has been watching complication and change for the mere sake of complication and change. Yet this, which he seems to disparage, is precisely the function of the historian. The eliciting of general truths or of propositions claiming universal validity is the one kind of consummation which it is beyond the competence of history to achieve. [Herbert Butterfield -From The Whig Interpretation of History (c. 1931)]
Miscellaneous Musings:
With the subject of gas prices being a constant news item this time of year, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what we wrote on the subject of high gas prices over a year and a half ago:
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 4, 2005)
I want to note a small snippet from that thread at this time for further comment:
At this point, it does not matter if the president taps into oil reserves or has the pumping capabilities in Alaska or other domestic sources increased. This would be done presumably with the idea of increasing supply of oil driving down the price of gas at the pump. But in the words of that great western philosopher Roscoe P. Coltraine: this theory has a serious "flaw in the slaw." For you can pump all the oil in the world but if you cannot increase refining capacities, the extra oil will not impact the prices at the pump. And for those who claim that we "should have had alternative energy sources by now" as their counter, it is now time for "economics 101" to dispatch with that notion in syllogistic form.
The readers can review the above thread in its entirety for a basic lesson in economics and what needs to be done to fix this matter. Here is another tidbit from the part where I outline solutions for the problem:
[T]he following ideas should accompany the above ones as more directly impacting short term goals on the energy prices:
--Pruning back the taxation on gasoline by fifty cents a gallon or or more.
--The building of more refineries to refine greater amounts of oil to thereby increase the gasoline supply.
The former would see an immediate reduction in gas prices and the government could compensate for it by cutting the federal budget to account for the lesser revenue received. The latter idea would create in a matter of months or more (depending on how quickly said refineries could be built and made servicable) a glut of gasoline supply and we all know what happens when the supply of a product increases: price decreases.
I must note that the fact that I paid $3.43 a gallon recently got me to thinking about the lack of refining capacity in greater depth. There is also the issue of gasoline taxes which could be rolled back and that would bring prices at the punp down.{1} It takes years to get permits to build things such as refineries but the reason for that is not the construction aspect but the whole zoning, permits, and all that jazz. I had in mind with my proposed solutions above a possible waving of the usual time periods for that stuff and giving it top priority.
I want to take it a step further though at this time and note that in the interest of an actual correction to the price issue, it would be nice to see a bipartisan plan put forward to build three new refineries in this country in the next two years or less. I do not anticipate that it will be done as to do this would involve telling a bunch of regulatory agencies and enviromentalist wackos to sod off. However, additional refinary capacity would enable us to cut into backlog of oil and increase gasoline supply. Increased supply would go hand in hand with lower prices but it is not likely to be done because that would be a substantive solution rather than the symbolic and useless gestures{2} that have been taken thus far. Nonetheless, putting the idea out there may play some role in getting the ball rolling on the matter so that is what I have decided to do at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who would whine about taking money from the federal leviathan I remind you that about over a trillion dollars of the federal budget is wasteful and unconstitutional.
{2} See this thread for one such example.
With the subject of gas prices being a constant news item this time of year, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what we wrote on the subject of high gas prices over a year and a half ago:
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 4, 2005)
I want to note a small snippet from that thread at this time for further comment:
At this point, it does not matter if the president taps into oil reserves or has the pumping capabilities in Alaska or other domestic sources increased. This would be done presumably with the idea of increasing supply of oil driving down the price of gas at the pump. But in the words of that great western philosopher Roscoe P. Coltraine: this theory has a serious "flaw in the slaw." For you can pump all the oil in the world but if you cannot increase refining capacities, the extra oil will not impact the prices at the pump. And for those who claim that we "should have had alternative energy sources by now" as their counter, it is now time for "economics 101" to dispatch with that notion in syllogistic form.
The readers can review the above thread in its entirety for a basic lesson in economics and what needs to be done to fix this matter. Here is another tidbit from the part where I outline solutions for the problem:
[T]he following ideas should accompany the above ones as more directly impacting short term goals on the energy prices:
--Pruning back the taxation on gasoline by fifty cents a gallon or or more.
--The building of more refineries to refine greater amounts of oil to thereby increase the gasoline supply.
The former would see an immediate reduction in gas prices and the government could compensate for it by cutting the federal budget to account for the lesser revenue received. The latter idea would create in a matter of months or more (depending on how quickly said refineries could be built and made servicable) a glut of gasoline supply and we all know what happens when the supply of a product increases: price decreases.
I must note that the fact that I paid $3.43 a gallon recently got me to thinking about the lack of refining capacity in greater depth. There is also the issue of gasoline taxes which could be rolled back and that would bring prices at the punp down.{1} It takes years to get permits to build things such as refineries but the reason for that is not the construction aspect but the whole zoning, permits, and all that jazz. I had in mind with my proposed solutions above a possible waving of the usual time periods for that stuff and giving it top priority.
I want to take it a step further though at this time and note that in the interest of an actual correction to the price issue, it would be nice to see a bipartisan plan put forward to build three new refineries in this country in the next two years or less. I do not anticipate that it will be done as to do this would involve telling a bunch of regulatory agencies and enviromentalist wackos to sod off. However, additional refinary capacity would enable us to cut into backlog of oil and increase gasoline supply. Increased supply would go hand in hand with lower prices but it is not likely to be done because that would be a substantive solution rather than the symbolic and useless gestures{2} that have been taken thus far. Nonetheless, putting the idea out there may play some role in getting the ball rolling on the matter so that is what I have decided to do at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who would whine about taking money from the federal leviathan I remind you that about over a trillion dollars of the federal budget is wasteful and unconstitutional.
{2} See this thread for one such example.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
"The Empire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept.
This is a response to an email from John C. Médaille pertaining to the posting I put up on distributivism a couple of days ago. His words will be in dark green font.
I think all the things I wrote to Richard apply to this.
Frankly John, I highly doubt it. Every time someone has told me that something they wrote to someone else explains something I have written, they have been significantly mistaken.
I understand you position,
With all due respect, I do not believe you do.
but I do not understand the Title of your blog, "Rerum Novarum," when your argument runs counter to the great encyclical.
Actually, my argument is quite congruent with that encyclical letter properly understood. I am an advocate of defending the totality of human dignity and that means not only a person's life but also their right to utilize their God-given faculties and to see the fruit of their faculties when put to proper use through production.
Life, faculties, and production or (to phrase them slightly differently) individuality, liberty, and property. If these rights are recognized individually, than by logical extension they can be applied for the common good as well. Furthermore, recognizing these rights as God-given and as transcending law, it means they cannot be either given to people by law or in ordinary circumstances (meaning: without due process) taken from them by law.
But leaving that aside, I think your position on property is more capitalist than Catholic.
You are imposing a dichotomy where one does not need to exist.
Property in St. Thomas is not a part of the natural law, but a useful and pragmatic addition devised by man.
The natural law is that which is intrinsic to man. And that man has had an impulse towards property before there were any codified laws on the matter is not insignificant. Let us look at the fundamental rights from a biblical template -hopefully that will help you see how they are indeed God-given.
In the creation sequence, the Bible has God saying the following (all citations from the KJV version):
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [Genesis i,26]
That is a divine gift of faculties and production right there with the former being manifested in the intention of creating man in God's image which involves the faculties of reason and logic.{1} The part about "letting him have dominion...over all the earth" is where the gift of production is manifested by logical corollary: the resources being given by man to develop with his God-given faculties of reason and logic. So the gifts of faculties and production have a solid Biblical stamp on them as does the God-given gift of life which is referred to in the Bible in these words:
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [Genesis i,27]
From there, God promulgates his previously manifested intentions:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. [Genesis i,28-30]
The arguments I set down pertaining to Bastiat's theory of the fundamental rights of man -while I focused purely on reason and logic in their enunciation- have a solid biblical footprint to them as rights which God gave to man. That means they are not man-made creations and thus not the mere useful and pragmatic addition devised by man that you claim.
Truthfully John, you need to read Rerum Novarum much more carefully -both my weblog as well as the encyclical. To note from the latter on the right of property for a moment (all emphasis is mine):
[E]very man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession ; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time. [Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum §6 (circa May 15, 1891)]
So let me see, I have covered these matters through reason and logic via Bastiat's classic 1850 formulation of the theory of fundamental rights, I have pointed out Biblical evidence supporting the theory of these rights as God-given, and the very encyclical I named my weblog after also makes these same distinctions claiming that the right to property is one granted by nature which means by God. That should be more than adequate to sustain the "Catholic" credentials of what I am advocating.
However, it therefore is a limited right.
I do not recall ever saying otherwise John.
While small property is sacred, large property, where ownership and use are divorced, is a social utility and therefore judged on just how useful it is.
You are not arguing your case on a non-normative{2} framework but instead are approaching this normatively{3} by using words such as "small" and "large." How do we quantify these terms in a non-arbitrary fashion John -a fashion that is not subject to the subjective whims of individuals or groups??? The answer is simple: we cannot do this. The fundamental right to property is intrinsic to nature -it does not expire when the property owned reaches a certain limit.
It is difficult for those who absolutize property to find any philosophical justification for property as an unlimited right.
Where did I ever claim that property is an "unlimited right"??? Find for me a single post in my weblog archives where I ever made such an assertion.
Even appeals to Locke, the usual culprit, leave aside Locke's proviso, as inconvenient to the argument.
In the five years I have explictly referred to the fundamental rights of man and applied them to various issues and circumstances, I have never to my knowledge made a single appeal to John Locke on anything.
Nevertheless, your charges are unfounded.
We shall see...
As a practical matter (and I think these subjects must always refer to praxis, and not to theory only), you can look at the land to the tiller program in Taiwan, which distributed the land from 20 families that controlled the island to a half-million peasants, and so fueled an expansion of the economy that Taiwan was not only catapulted from a feudal backwater to an industrial powerhouse in just one generation, but was able to accomplish this with a high degree of equity (much higher than in the United States) and with almost no unemployment.
If the families you mention consented to having their property treated in such a manner than I have no objection. However, if they did not, than all your arguments to attempt to "prove" how superior distributivist rationale is only prove my point. Meaning: if the property was seized from them, then you are advocating the undermining of their fundamental right to property (a perversion of law) to achieve your vaunted "good." To put this in Catholic ethics-speak, you are claiming that the end of distributivism justifies the means of perverting the law through plunder and the denigration of the God-given fundamental right to property.
Theory proves everything, and hence proves nothing.
Such a statement shows me that you do not understand what a theory actually is John. It is not some will-o-wisp notion shrouded in mysticism. Or to quote something I wrote three and a half years ago:
[W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action." [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
When you are in possession of a valid theory and making a proper application of the principles so contained therein, then regardless of what the field you are involved in you should see immediate, continuous, and spectacular progress in direct proportion to how well you are applying the precepts correctly. This is why your assertion about theory prov[ing] everything, and hence prov[ing] nothing is so absurd.
Tell the scientists at NASA that the theories they use to facilitate a safe travel through space fit that criteria. Indeed their theories prove a lot since there is a remarkable trackrecord of sending men into space and bringing them back safely again and again. Tell doctors who practice medicine that medical theory proves everything, and hence proves nothing. By your "rationale" we could just as easily dispense with modern medical theory and entrust people to the care of a voodoo witch doctor who has no understanding whatsoever of medical theory.
There is a reason why a voodoo witch doctor has about a 0% success rate with his patients and the average medical doctor's success rate is significantly higher. The reason is because medicine is an exact, specific discipline and has abstract universal principles that can be applied in correlative action to facilitate a high degree of success. Likewise, understanding the market and the factors that influence its actions involves specific factors and if you are familiar with them and how they function, the degree to which you apply the principles correctly is the degree to which you will have the sort of immediate, continuous, and spectacular progress I spoke of earlier.
Of course it should not surprise that you take such an absurd approach to what constitutes valid theories and what does not because it gets to the root and matrix of the problem with distributivist methodology. For one of the characteristics of a valid theory is that it cannot be contradictory and if it is, than it is invalid. And in the application of distributivism, there is in virtually every instance formal contradiction. The only saving grace you may have with it is if those families willingly gave consent to turn over their property. If they did then your example can be used as a compelling piece of evidence for the methodology of distributivism. But if they did not, then you are advocating a methodology grounded on the dehumanizing principle of plunder.
In prudential matters (and the economy is a prudential matter) it is best to see how things actually work in the real world.
Even matters of prudence are to be guided by principles John. But let me get this straight. First, you claim a dichotomy between capitalism and Catholicism and claim that my view is "more capitalist than Catholic" -an assertion you make without bothering to substantiate it. Then you claim the argument I set forth in that posting "runs counter to the great encyclical" of Pope Leo XIII of which my weblog share's its name. These are a lot of accusations John.
Now I have without even breaking a mental sweat pointed out in this response that my approach is not only biblical but also that my approach to life, faculties, and production has explicit magisterial sanction by the very same pope whose encyclical you claim "runs counter" to my weblog. Nice try John but you obviously have not read Rerum Novarum the encyclical if you think that Rerum Novarum the weblog in any way whatsoever runs counter to it.
Furthermore, you obviously lack a proper conception of what is and is not Catholic if you claim that my approach is in any way deficient in catholicity. The truth is, you have bought into Hillaire Belloc's misdefinition of what "capitalism" is. I do not blame Belloc for giving it the old college try to fashion a way between capitalism (as he erroneously envisioned it) and socialism (as he accurately envisioned it). But ultimately, unless you have parties willing to turn over their property for such experiments, his system cannot work in reality without the commission of evil to potentially produce the good.
Are we not, all unawares, objectively risking a shameless individualism and selfishness when we seek to live in the Church in such a way as baldly to arrange it to our own taste? [Karl Rahner]
I have my own citation for you and it is far more authoritative than Karl Rahner:
Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. [Pope Gregory XVI: Encyclical Letter Mirari Vos §15 (circa August 15, 1832)]
Unless those families consented to turning over their property{4}, you are advocating a violation of their fundamental right to their property and thus advocating doing evil so that what you would advocate in distributivist application could produce "good." And that my friend is the hallmark of something which is not Catholic so you would be wise to reconsider your position. I will end this with the rationally solid observation of Claude Frederic Bastiat on what is and is not a just use of law:
The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- long before the appearance even of socialism itself -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder...
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 24, 2002)]
That is the problem I have with distributivism at its core John: it endorses a perversion of the law through what Bastiat called "legal plunder."{5} And no amount of justification therefore{6} will bring me or anyone else who views Aristotle's law of non-contradiction{7} as indispensable for proper utilization of reason and logic to accept it. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} Indeed you would concur I presume that no other known creature has these capabilities.
{2} Normative: Deals with what is "better" or "worse" and therefore involves a value judgment which is properly viewed as subjective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]
{3} Non-Normative: Deals with what is verifiable by the examination of facts which are capable of resolving the issue and therefore is properly viewed as objective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]
{4} And I say "may" because I am not familiar with the intricacies of that experiment you refer to.
{5} Barring a truly magnanimous gesture on the part of the people you speak of turning over of their own free will their property for redistribution of course. (Which is possible however remote.)
{6} Barring an extraordinary circumstance which is not likely -see footnote five for details.
{7} One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time. [Aristotle]
This is a response to an email from John C. Médaille pertaining to the posting I put up on distributivism a couple of days ago. His words will be in dark green font.
I think all the things I wrote to Richard apply to this.
Frankly John, I highly doubt it. Every time someone has told me that something they wrote to someone else explains something I have written, they have been significantly mistaken.
I understand you position,
With all due respect, I do not believe you do.
but I do not understand the Title of your blog, "Rerum Novarum," when your argument runs counter to the great encyclical.
Actually, my argument is quite congruent with that encyclical letter properly understood. I am an advocate of defending the totality of human dignity and that means not only a person's life but also their right to utilize their God-given faculties and to see the fruit of their faculties when put to proper use through production.
Life, faculties, and production or (to phrase them slightly differently) individuality, liberty, and property. If these rights are recognized individually, than by logical extension they can be applied for the common good as well. Furthermore, recognizing these rights as God-given and as transcending law, it means they cannot be either given to people by law or in ordinary circumstances (meaning: without due process) taken from them by law.
But leaving that aside, I think your position on property is more capitalist than Catholic.
You are imposing a dichotomy where one does not need to exist.
Property in St. Thomas is not a part of the natural law, but a useful and pragmatic addition devised by man.
The natural law is that which is intrinsic to man. And that man has had an impulse towards property before there were any codified laws on the matter is not insignificant. Let us look at the fundamental rights from a biblical template -hopefully that will help you see how they are indeed God-given.
In the creation sequence, the Bible has God saying the following (all citations from the KJV version):
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [Genesis i,26]
That is a divine gift of faculties and production right there with the former being manifested in the intention of creating man in God's image which involves the faculties of reason and logic.{1} The part about "letting him have dominion...over all the earth" is where the gift of production is manifested by logical corollary: the resources being given by man to develop with his God-given faculties of reason and logic. So the gifts of faculties and production have a solid Biblical stamp on them as does the God-given gift of life which is referred to in the Bible in these words:
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [Genesis i,27]
From there, God promulgates his previously manifested intentions:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. [Genesis i,28-30]
The arguments I set down pertaining to Bastiat's theory of the fundamental rights of man -while I focused purely on reason and logic in their enunciation- have a solid biblical footprint to them as rights which God gave to man. That means they are not man-made creations and thus not the mere useful and pragmatic addition devised by man that you claim.
Truthfully John, you need to read Rerum Novarum much more carefully -both my weblog as well as the encyclical. To note from the latter on the right of property for a moment (all emphasis is mine):
[E]very man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account - that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession ; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time. [Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum §6 (circa May 15, 1891)]
So let me see, I have covered these matters through reason and logic via Bastiat's classic 1850 formulation of the theory of fundamental rights, I have pointed out Biblical evidence supporting the theory of these rights as God-given, and the very encyclical I named my weblog after also makes these same distinctions claiming that the right to property is one granted by nature which means by God. That should be more than adequate to sustain the "Catholic" credentials of what I am advocating.
However, it therefore is a limited right.
I do not recall ever saying otherwise John.
While small property is sacred, large property, where ownership and use are divorced, is a social utility and therefore judged on just how useful it is.
You are not arguing your case on a non-normative{2} framework but instead are approaching this normatively{3} by using words such as "small" and "large." How do we quantify these terms in a non-arbitrary fashion John -a fashion that is not subject to the subjective whims of individuals or groups??? The answer is simple: we cannot do this. The fundamental right to property is intrinsic to nature -it does not expire when the property owned reaches a certain limit.
It is difficult for those who absolutize property to find any philosophical justification for property as an unlimited right.
Where did I ever claim that property is an "unlimited right"??? Find for me a single post in my weblog archives where I ever made such an assertion.
Even appeals to Locke, the usual culprit, leave aside Locke's proviso, as inconvenient to the argument.
In the five years I have explictly referred to the fundamental rights of man and applied them to various issues and circumstances, I have never to my knowledge made a single appeal to John Locke on anything.
Nevertheless, your charges are unfounded.
We shall see...
As a practical matter (and I think these subjects must always refer to praxis, and not to theory only), you can look at the land to the tiller program in Taiwan, which distributed the land from 20 families that controlled the island to a half-million peasants, and so fueled an expansion of the economy that Taiwan was not only catapulted from a feudal backwater to an industrial powerhouse in just one generation, but was able to accomplish this with a high degree of equity (much higher than in the United States) and with almost no unemployment.
If the families you mention consented to having their property treated in such a manner than I have no objection. However, if they did not, than all your arguments to attempt to "prove" how superior distributivist rationale is only prove my point. Meaning: if the property was seized from them, then you are advocating the undermining of their fundamental right to property (a perversion of law) to achieve your vaunted "good." To put this in Catholic ethics-speak, you are claiming that the end of distributivism justifies the means of perverting the law through plunder and the denigration of the God-given fundamental right to property.
Theory proves everything, and hence proves nothing.
Such a statement shows me that you do not understand what a theory actually is John. It is not some will-o-wisp notion shrouded in mysticism. Or to quote something I wrote three and a half years ago:
[W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action." [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
When you are in possession of a valid theory and making a proper application of the principles so contained therein, then regardless of what the field you are involved in you should see immediate, continuous, and spectacular progress in direct proportion to how well you are applying the precepts correctly. This is why your assertion about theory prov[ing] everything, and hence prov[ing] nothing is so absurd.
Tell the scientists at NASA that the theories they use to facilitate a safe travel through space fit that criteria. Indeed their theories prove a lot since there is a remarkable trackrecord of sending men into space and bringing them back safely again and again. Tell doctors who practice medicine that medical theory proves everything, and hence proves nothing. By your "rationale" we could just as easily dispense with modern medical theory and entrust people to the care of a voodoo witch doctor who has no understanding whatsoever of medical theory.
There is a reason why a voodoo witch doctor has about a 0% success rate with his patients and the average medical doctor's success rate is significantly higher. The reason is because medicine is an exact, specific discipline and has abstract universal principles that can be applied in correlative action to facilitate a high degree of success. Likewise, understanding the market and the factors that influence its actions involves specific factors and if you are familiar with them and how they function, the degree to which you apply the principles correctly is the degree to which you will have the sort of immediate, continuous, and spectacular progress I spoke of earlier.
Of course it should not surprise that you take such an absurd approach to what constitutes valid theories and what does not because it gets to the root and matrix of the problem with distributivist methodology. For one of the characteristics of a valid theory is that it cannot be contradictory and if it is, than it is invalid. And in the application of distributivism, there is in virtually every instance formal contradiction. The only saving grace you may have with it is if those families willingly gave consent to turn over their property. If they did then your example can be used as a compelling piece of evidence for the methodology of distributivism. But if they did not, then you are advocating a methodology grounded on the dehumanizing principle of plunder.
In prudential matters (and the economy is a prudential matter) it is best to see how things actually work in the real world.
Even matters of prudence are to be guided by principles John. But let me get this straight. First, you claim a dichotomy between capitalism and Catholicism and claim that my view is "more capitalist than Catholic" -an assertion you make without bothering to substantiate it. Then you claim the argument I set forth in that posting "runs counter to the great encyclical" of Pope Leo XIII of which my weblog share's its name. These are a lot of accusations John.
Now I have without even breaking a mental sweat pointed out in this response that my approach is not only biblical but also that my approach to life, faculties, and production has explicit magisterial sanction by the very same pope whose encyclical you claim "runs counter" to my weblog. Nice try John but you obviously have not read Rerum Novarum the encyclical if you think that Rerum Novarum the weblog in any way whatsoever runs counter to it.
Furthermore, you obviously lack a proper conception of what is and is not Catholic if you claim that my approach is in any way deficient in catholicity. The truth is, you have bought into Hillaire Belloc's misdefinition of what "capitalism" is. I do not blame Belloc for giving it the old college try to fashion a way between capitalism (as he erroneously envisioned it) and socialism (as he accurately envisioned it). But ultimately, unless you have parties willing to turn over their property for such experiments, his system cannot work in reality without the commission of evil to potentially produce the good.
Are we not, all unawares, objectively risking a shameless individualism and selfishness when we seek to live in the Church in such a way as baldly to arrange it to our own taste? [Karl Rahner]
I have my own citation for you and it is far more authoritative than Karl Rahner:
Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. [Pope Gregory XVI: Encyclical Letter Mirari Vos §15 (circa August 15, 1832)]
Unless those families consented to turning over their property{4}, you are advocating a violation of their fundamental right to their property and thus advocating doing evil so that what you would advocate in distributivist application could produce "good." And that my friend is the hallmark of something which is not Catholic so you would be wise to reconsider your position. I will end this with the rationally solid observation of Claude Frederic Bastiat on what is and is not a just use of law:
The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- long before the appearance even of socialism itself -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder...
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 24, 2002)]
That is the problem I have with distributivism at its core John: it endorses a perversion of the law through what Bastiat called "legal plunder."{5} And no amount of justification therefore{6} will bring me or anyone else who views Aristotle's law of non-contradiction{7} as indispensable for proper utilization of reason and logic to accept it. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} Indeed you would concur I presume that no other known creature has these capabilities.
{2} Normative: Deals with what is "better" or "worse" and therefore involves a value judgment which is properly viewed as subjective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]
{3} Non-Normative: Deals with what is verifiable by the examination of facts which are capable of resolving the issue and therefore is properly viewed as objective in nature. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 21, 2006)]
{4} And I say "may" because I am not familiar with the intricacies of that experiment you refer to.
{5} Barring a truly magnanimous gesture on the part of the people you speak of turning over of their own free will their property for redistribution of course. (Which is possible however remote.)
{6} Barring an extraordinary circumstance which is not likely -see footnote five for details.
{7} One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time. [Aristotle]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)