"If Catholics Adhere to Their Traditions, They Will Vote for Ron Paul"

[Adelbrecht]

But since you are so cock-sure that I haven't "the slightest clue what socialism actually is" (what makes you so sure?), I pray you, my all-knowing young teacher, will school me.

As I've said, you call everything that isn't laissez-faire capitalism socialism. If anything, the principles in Europe are social democrat. Socialism rejects current authority and individual property.

 

Please quote your source. You are most certainly taking it (and me) out of context if you think my views are contrary to the Church's.

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

{CCC}

Ah, but you are happy to live under socialism so long as it suits your purposes.

I prefer the Belgian welfare state that you call socialism over the American hybrid of the worst of both capitalist ideas.

[Crusading Philologist]

I don't know. Here's Bryan Caplan on the Austrian position:

4.2. Is Theory Enough?

Armchair economic theorizing can be and often is a productive way of learning about the world. Mises and Rothbard clearly proclaim this, I readily concede it, and most neoclassical economists frequently "act as if" they believe it. Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant.

Price theory shows us that a minimum wage in excess of the market-clearing price will increase unemployment. However, as Mises and Rothbard emphasize, economic theory tells us nothing about how big the increase in unemployment will be. Empirical studies of the imposition of minimum wages do more than merely illustrate economic theory; they help economists to learn which theoretically relevant factors actually matter. Paraphrasing Lord Kelvin, while economic theory is real knowledge, until you study some economic history your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. An economist who attributes hyper-inflations to radically and continuing declines in the demand for money contradicts no economic theory. He is however still a bad economist, because he analysis of which factors are quantitatively significant is so far off.

Yes, it is possible for the quantitative importance of different factors to change over time and across different societies; but study of these differences is just another task to which good economists need to devote themselves. For example, population economists do more than just describe the causes behind population growth; they also generalize about why different causes matter more in different countries and times. An increase in the supply of food may greatly increase population growth in a poor country, without having any important impact in a richer country; both facts required empirical study to learn, the facts learned varied across time and place, and yet an underlying and important pattern still exists.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

I undersand his point, but he's not saying that Austrian economics exists solely in a hermetically-sealed theoretical world. It is no more the case for Austrian economics than it is for Aristotelean philosophy.  Knowledge via human observation is inherent to any such philosophizing.

It seems like his point about the Austrian belief that economic history can only illustrate economic theory without actually contributing anything useful to the theory is a good one, though. The Austrian principle of "methodological individualism" also strikes me as an example of refusing to let empirical evidence come into play. The Austrians claim that this is a foundational principle that can be used to deduce individual actions in hypothetical situations.

However, while the idea that individuals always take rational action in order to satisfy subjective preferences situated along a sliding scale of value is nice in theory, you can point to plenty of examples in which people appear to do otherwise in response to social and cultural influences. So, the problem with methodological individualism is that it is an attempt to sneak in a social imaginary under the radar. For the Austrians,  the idea that society is fundamentally an agglomeration of subjective rational agents is just self-evident, but this is hardly "scientific" or "objective." Of course, attempting to model the social sciences on the standards of natural sciences is always a fool's errand as scientific descriptions of human behavior are really only possible to any degree in closed systems, so on that point I think the Austrians tend to be nearer the truth, but the Austrians still just seem to assume methodological individualism without much of an argument.

On the related idea of value, you also have to ask if it makes sense to see things in terms of one measure of value. Can we really say that there is just one univocal kind of "value" which people attribute to both religious devotion and new basketball shoes with the difference being only one of degree?

On the question of the rich and the means of production in capitalism, I think "capitalism" usually tends to imply an economy in which the means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie, who then employ wage-laborers to work the means of production. I suppose it  comes down to semantics, but an economy in which the means of production were widely distributed would arguably be missing many of the key features of the capitalist system.  

I think your assumptions are erroneous. Concentrated means of production in the hands of the few is not inherent to the definition of capitalism.  It's quite possible for there to exist an economy where most of the means of production reside in small businesses. That was certainly the case in most of small town America 100 years ago.

Well, I suppose in this case there are just multiple definitions of capitalism. I doubt Marx for example would define a society with a broad distribution of the means of production as "capitalist." I believe some "left-libertarians" also like to argue that there is a difference between a "free market economy" and actually-existing, historical capitalism.

[rbjmartin]

But since you are so cock-sure that I haven't "the slightest clue what socialism actually is" (what makes you so sure?), I pray you, my all-knowing young teacher, will school me.

As I've said, you call everything that isn't laissez-faire capitalism socialism. If anything, the principles in Europe are social democrat. Socialism rejects current authority and individual property.

I do not. Please quote where I have done so. You are having trouble pigeon-holing me based on my comments, so you have made a convenient generalization. That is called intellectual dishonesty.

The quoted passage from the Catechism is poorly-worded and hardly definitive. Nevertheless, the free market principles I advocate do not stand in contradiction to the rights of free individuals, for a truly free market protects the rights of producers and consumers via laws (i.e. regulations) against theft and fraud. The false premise that is being proposed here is that it is the role of government to intervene to safeguard social justice. To a degree, government can assist in a society's social justice needs. However, the majority of social justice issues need to be addressed by private individuals and entities.

Ah, but you are happy to live under socialism so long as it suits your purposes.

I prefer the Belgian welfare state that you call socialism over the American hybrid of the worst of both capitalist ideas.

I have no love for your welfare state or ours. They are both reprehensible and unsustainable. We'll see how much you love your socialist paradise in 5 years.

[Adelbrecht]

I do not. Please quote where I have done so. You are having trouble pigeon-holing me based on my comments, so you have made a convenient generalization. That is called intellectual dishonesty.

You called me a socialist, called my country socialist, ...  and that is just plain nonsense. You are intellectually dishonest, not me. I simply toyed a bit with it because of your phobia.

The quoted passage from the Catechism is poorly-worded and hardly definitive.

No, it is not.
"regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice" => "Invisible hand" => the essence of laissez-faire capitalism

Nevertheless, the free market principles I advocate do not stand in contradiction to the rights of free individuals

That was not the question.

What about universal health care? It's an inalienable right according to the Pope. How do you combine that with libertarianism?

for a truly free market protects the rights of producers and consumers via laws (i.e. regulations) against theft and fraud.

That is not enough. It is not even the bare minimum. Living wages, environmental concerns, ...

The false premise that is being proposed here is that it is the role of government to intervene to safeguard social justice.

It is one of their tasks.

To a degree, government can assist in a society's social justice needs. However, the majority of social justice issues need to be addressed by private individuals and entities.

Cooperatives, yes, private individuals, no.

I have no love for your welfare state or ours. They are both reprehensible and unsustainable. We'll see how much you love your socialist paradise in 5 years.

A welfare state in America? 

The only thing that's making all this unsustainable is liberalists who try to privatize all our important sector (and have already created a lot of profitless sectors that way), the capitalistic system of fractional reserve banking and usury.

[rbjmartin]

We can't really continue with this discussion, because there is so little common ground, as evidenced by statements such as:
"What about universal health care? It's an inalienable right according to the Pope."

I really can't argue with someone who is such an ultramontanist to the point of giving de fide consent to socialist propositions uttered by the Pope.

[Adelbrecht]

I really can't argue with someone who is such an ultramontanist to the point of giving de fide consent to socialist propositions uttered by the Pope.

Socialist? That's exactly what I meant when I said you don't know what socialism is. One of the first systems of universal health care was instituted by Otto von Bismarck of all people. The socialists didn't even suggest such a thing, and Bismarck trumped them with it.

Heck, the allies led by the Americans actually implemented universal health care in most European countries after World War Two.

[rbjmartin]

I really can't argue with someone who is such an ultramontanist to the point of giving de fide consent to socialist propositions uttered by the Pope.

Socialist? That's exactly what I meant when I said you don't know what socialism is. One of the first systems of universal health care was instituted by Otto von Bismarck of all people. The socialists didn't even suggest such a thing, and Bismarck trumped them with it.

Heck, the allies led by the Americans actually implemented universal health care in most European countries after World War Two.

Socialism has been around since at least the mid-19th century. Bastiat rails against it The Law (published in 1850).

The essence of socialism is the redistribution of wealth for the purposes of some sort of re-ordering of society. Any act by the government which takes (i.e. steals) money from one individual and gives it to another is socialistic in nature.

[Adelbrecht]

Socialism has been around since at least the mid-19th century. Bastiat rails against it The Law (published in 1850).

Marxism, yes.

The essence of socialism is the redistribution of wealth for the purposes of some sort of re-ordering of society.

The essence of the socialism of our concern, Marxism, because that is the well known socialism also opposed by the Church, wants to reorder the society through a revolution. That society, a dictatorship of the proletariat at first, would abolish land as property, and its centralised state would own all the means of production.

Any act by the government which takes (i.e. steals) money from one individual and gives it to another is socialistic in nature.

*facepalm*