This story from Drudge the other day caught my attention:
More than 3 percent of the 2.8 million federal civilian employees owed the Treasury unpaid federal income taxes in 2008, according to the IRS. If you include retirees and military service members, the numbers go from nearly 100,000 up to 276,000 current or former workers who owe $3 billion in taxes.
The problem here is that federal employees pay no income tax. As Murray Rothbard observed:
If a bureaucrat receives a salary of $5,000 a year and pays $1,000 in "taxes" to the government, it is quite obvious that he is simply receiving a salary of $4,000 and pays no taxes at all. The heads of the government have simply chosen a complex and misleading accounting device to make it appear that he pays taxes in the same way as any other men making the same income. The UN’s arrangement, whereby all its employees are exempt from any income taxation, is far more candid. - Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, pp. 1151-2
There are other problems with federal employees, such as that they make more money than productive private sector employees, and that, when not completely worthless, they actually inhibit production by insisting that the private sector participate in an Olympics of bureaucratic games in order to provide goods and services to consumers.
Anything which draws attention to the bloated government sector can't be all bad, but the focus on unpaid taxes rather misses the point.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
On the coming death of Keynesian economics
For those who believe the economic crisis is over, Keynes is the hero of the hour. His ideas were implemented by enlightened Governments around the world--especially those of the United States and the United Kingdom. Without the decisive action to bail out bankers with borrowed money, these countries would still be mired in recession.
For the narrative to fit, no mind must be paid to the fact that countries which neglected to implement Keynesian ideas, such as Germany, are doing even better. And we must refrain from pointing out that the boost in GDP has done nothing to reduce unemployment. This is a jobless recovery, whatever that may mean.
I don't for a second believe this crisis is over. I am also far from convinced that the credit given to Keynes will be turned to blame should the recovery fail to materialize. Gary North is more optimistic than I am:
When the USSR went bust economically in 1988, then lost the Afghan war in 1989, and finally committed suicide in 1991, Marxism died. All the footnotes in the Marxist books no longer mattered in academia. All the post-1991 wailing by Marxists that the Soviet Union really had never been truly Marxist has been ignored. Why? Because the Marxists took credit for the USSR for 74 years. They praised the Soviet Union's central planning. So, in 1991, they could not get off the sinking Soviet ship in time to justify the Marxist system.
By 1991, China's economy was booming because of Deng's abandonment of Marxist economics in 1978. That left only Albania, Cuba, and North Korea. The Marxists had nowhere to turn to that offered evidence of economic success. Overnight, they became a laughing stock on campus.
This will be the fate of Keynesians when the governments of the West finally go bust or else abandon the deficits and the fiat money.
North has a point, but I see two problems with his analysis. First, it is extremely unlikely that the "recovery" will last seventy-four years. It is far more likely that it will be revealed to be chimerical by the end of the year than that it should last three quarters of a century. This is important because the more an idea is impressed upon the minds of men, the harder it is to uproot. If the stock market collapses tomorrow, and the unemployment numbers shoot up, the Keynesians will have some explaining to do. But the longer the false recovery lasts, the harder it will be for them to explain away the failure of their theories.
Second, I am not so sure the Keynesians will be discredited by more than the small number of people who pay attention to these sorts of things. Ron Paul has done a tremendous service in educating people--myself included--about the school of Austrian economics. His impact, exemplified by his recent win at the CPAC straw poll, should not be understated. But even with the increased interest in economics that accompanies every end of the boom phase of the business cycle, much work remains.
North is aware of this, but I'm still concerned that so much of the populace remains completely ignorant of economics in general, or at least of any alternative to the Keynesian chatter that dominates everywhere outside of the Internet, that the opportunity will only be capable of so much. Mainstream economists should have been run out of town after their embarrassing inability to notice the economic crisis they now take credit for having averted. But Krugman still has his column, and I think it depressingly likely that this will not change, even should the economy worsen to the extent that no one can mention recovery without being laughed at.
After all, most of the neo-conservatives who proved so abysmally inaccurate about WMDs, the Al-Qaeda connection--in fact, most everything about the Iraq War--are still ubiquitous. Bill Kristol will probably continue to write alongside Krugman even after they should have both been discredited.
This said, North is right about the opportunity for adherents of the Austrian school. As economics is only one of my interests--I have a full-time job as a computer programmer--I don't think I'd be able to contribute to North's project to dismantle the Keynesian system. Nor, to be honest, do I believe my sparse readings in economics qualify me for the role. But I wish him the best of luck.
Still, my brother, who is presently majoring in economics, and I plan on reading Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money sometime this summer on this blog. I can't promise a line by line examination of the book, but we should be able to cover some of the main points, as PJ and I have tried to do for On Liberty and The Republic. Every little bit helps.
For the narrative to fit, no mind must be paid to the fact that countries which neglected to implement Keynesian ideas, such as Germany, are doing even better. And we must refrain from pointing out that the boost in GDP has done nothing to reduce unemployment. This is a jobless recovery, whatever that may mean.
I don't for a second believe this crisis is over. I am also far from convinced that the credit given to Keynes will be turned to blame should the recovery fail to materialize. Gary North is more optimistic than I am:
When the USSR went bust economically in 1988, then lost the Afghan war in 1989, and finally committed suicide in 1991, Marxism died. All the footnotes in the Marxist books no longer mattered in academia. All the post-1991 wailing by Marxists that the Soviet Union really had never been truly Marxist has been ignored. Why? Because the Marxists took credit for the USSR for 74 years. They praised the Soviet Union's central planning. So, in 1991, they could not get off the sinking Soviet ship in time to justify the Marxist system.
By 1991, China's economy was booming because of Deng's abandonment of Marxist economics in 1978. That left only Albania, Cuba, and North Korea. The Marxists had nowhere to turn to that offered evidence of economic success. Overnight, they became a laughing stock on campus.
This will be the fate of Keynesians when the governments of the West finally go bust or else abandon the deficits and the fiat money.
North has a point, but I see two problems with his analysis. First, it is extremely unlikely that the "recovery" will last seventy-four years. It is far more likely that it will be revealed to be chimerical by the end of the year than that it should last three quarters of a century. This is important because the more an idea is impressed upon the minds of men, the harder it is to uproot. If the stock market collapses tomorrow, and the unemployment numbers shoot up, the Keynesians will have some explaining to do. But the longer the false recovery lasts, the harder it will be for them to explain away the failure of their theories.
Second, I am not so sure the Keynesians will be discredited by more than the small number of people who pay attention to these sorts of things. Ron Paul has done a tremendous service in educating people--myself included--about the school of Austrian economics. His impact, exemplified by his recent win at the CPAC straw poll, should not be understated. But even with the increased interest in economics that accompanies every end of the boom phase of the business cycle, much work remains.
North is aware of this, but I'm still concerned that so much of the populace remains completely ignorant of economics in general, or at least of any alternative to the Keynesian chatter that dominates everywhere outside of the Internet, that the opportunity will only be capable of so much. Mainstream economists should have been run out of town after their embarrassing inability to notice the economic crisis they now take credit for having averted. But Krugman still has his column, and I think it depressingly likely that this will not change, even should the economy worsen to the extent that no one can mention recovery without being laughed at.
After all, most of the neo-conservatives who proved so abysmally inaccurate about WMDs, the Al-Qaeda connection--in fact, most everything about the Iraq War--are still ubiquitous. Bill Kristol will probably continue to write alongside Krugman even after they should have both been discredited.
This said, North is right about the opportunity for adherents of the Austrian school. As economics is only one of my interests--I have a full-time job as a computer programmer--I don't think I'd be able to contribute to North's project to dismantle the Keynesian system. Nor, to be honest, do I believe my sparse readings in economics qualify me for the role. But I wish him the best of luck.
Still, my brother, who is presently majoring in economics, and I plan on reading Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money sometime this summer on this blog. I can't promise a line by line examination of the book, but we should be able to cover some of the main points, as PJ and I have tried to do for On Liberty and The Republic. Every little bit helps.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Stock up now
The tax on pipe tobacco is heading drastically upwards:
Just about every member of the pipe smoking community should already know about H.R. 4439, the Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010. It proposes to raise the tax on pipe tobacco 775% from $2.8311 to $24.78 per pound.
Since I happen to smoke pipe tobacco, this issue is nearer to my heart than it may be to yours. But it should be aggravating to anyone who cares at all for liberty. If the Government can place prohibitive taxes on any economic good, it can make them all but illegal. I'm not certain we'll see a black market for tobacco emerge, like the ones we already have for drugs which are actually illegal, but as the taxes continue to increase, that day becomes ever nearer at hand. In the meantime, we must simply pay exorbitant prices for a legal good.
The article I linked to contains an interview with an entrepreneur who sells roll your own tobacco and pipe tobacco. It's instructive for two reasons: first, in that it demonstrates how decisions by bureaucrats destroy working sectors of the economy without the least concern. Both the entrepreneur and his customers benefited by the free exchange of tobacco for money; they will now have to pay more dearly--but at least the State can make steal a bit of money from its citizens.
Second: regulation hurts small companies more than it hurts corporations. To be in favor of excessive regulation and yet to be anti-corporation is to reveal oneself to be ignorant, or a moron, or both.
These oppressive bastards are going to make everybody in pipe tobacco register in their states. Folks in roll-your-own and cigarettes do now. Every year you have to get your brand certified. In terms of incrementalism, that’s one of the next steps, and another thing to destroy manufacturers because the paperwork is so regressive and so time-consuming, it’s more than a small company can sustain.
The people in government can do it because they don’t have to pay for their payroll. They can just steal more money from taxpayers. They can add employees ad nauseam to process all the paperwork because they don’t have to produce anything to pay all the salaries. For a business it’s a little different. It gets to a point that a business just says screw it, I can’t afford the paperwork. It’s time to shutter the store. We’re getting to that point.
It would be hyperbole to suggest that this is evidence that we no longer live in a free society. But it is telling that this sort of thing can happen without anyone really noticing. Sure, Pipes Magazine picked up on it, but if Lew Rockwell hadn't linked to it, I'm not sure how many people would have noticed. The next thing you know, Obama and the Democrats will extend the PATRIOT Act...
Just about every member of the pipe smoking community should already know about H.R. 4439, the Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010. It proposes to raise the tax on pipe tobacco 775% from $2.8311 to $24.78 per pound.
Since I happen to smoke pipe tobacco, this issue is nearer to my heart than it may be to yours. But it should be aggravating to anyone who cares at all for liberty. If the Government can place prohibitive taxes on any economic good, it can make them all but illegal. I'm not certain we'll see a black market for tobacco emerge, like the ones we already have for drugs which are actually illegal, but as the taxes continue to increase, that day becomes ever nearer at hand. In the meantime, we must simply pay exorbitant prices for a legal good.
The article I linked to contains an interview with an entrepreneur who sells roll your own tobacco and pipe tobacco. It's instructive for two reasons: first, in that it demonstrates how decisions by bureaucrats destroy working sectors of the economy without the least concern. Both the entrepreneur and his customers benefited by the free exchange of tobacco for money; they will now have to pay more dearly--but at least the State can make steal a bit of money from its citizens.
Second: regulation hurts small companies more than it hurts corporations. To be in favor of excessive regulation and yet to be anti-corporation is to reveal oneself to be ignorant, or a moron, or both.
These oppressive bastards are going to make everybody in pipe tobacco register in their states. Folks in roll-your-own and cigarettes do now. Every year you have to get your brand certified. In terms of incrementalism, that’s one of the next steps, and another thing to destroy manufacturers because the paperwork is so regressive and so time-consuming, it’s more than a small company can sustain.
The people in government can do it because they don’t have to pay for their payroll. They can just steal more money from taxpayers. They can add employees ad nauseam to process all the paperwork because they don’t have to produce anything to pay all the salaries. For a business it’s a little different. It gets to a point that a business just says screw it, I can’t afford the paperwork. It’s time to shutter the store. We’re getting to that point.
It would be hyperbole to suggest that this is evidence that we no longer live in a free society. But it is telling that this sort of thing can happen without anyone really noticing. Sure, Pipes Magazine picked up on it, but if Lew Rockwell hadn't linked to it, I'm not sure how many people would have noticed. The next thing you know, Obama and the Democrats will extend the PATRIOT Act...
Saturday, February 20, 2010
On Liberty
I've gone back into the archives to provide links to the first set of discussions PJ and I had. May this someday prove useful, to someone.
1) Introductory
2) Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
3) Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being
4) Of the Limits of the Authority of Society Over the Individual
5) Applications
1) Introductory
2) Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
3) Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being
4) Of the Limits of the Authority of Society Over the Individual
5) Applications
Instructive Reflections
Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, is a collection of lectures and papers by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. This slender volume takes a theme similar to that of his book, The New People of God, first published (in German) in 1969: "the question of the nature of the Church and her structure, the questions of ecumenicism and of the relation between the Church and the world." The threefold division given in the book will be followed in my review.
The first part, On the Nature and Structure of the Church, contains a useful chapter, "The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God"; it offers insight into the Cardinal's understanding of the responsibility of the pope, which responsibility is now his. The pope's relation to the Church, as an individual, is not only biblically sound—we find Paul speaking, as Paul, for the members of his community, and addressing other communities through their leaders, such as Peter—it also provides a framework for responsibility. Ratzinger uses Reginald Cardinal Pole's observations to work his way towards a pope who leads and guides his Church even in, perhaps especially through, personal suffering. As Pole observes: "The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than care and responsibility for all the Churches throughout the world?" Ratzinger was reflecting on this cross long before it became his as pope.
Part two deals with Ecumenical Problems. Given the recent actions by the author, as Pope Benedict XVI, in respects to the struggling Anglican Church, "Problems and Prospects of the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue" is most enlightening. Although it will be some time before the effects of the olive branch offered to Anglicans by Pope Benedict are known, this section makes clear that when the pope acted, he did so with immense awareness of the issues at stake. In the appendix to this section, Ratzinger draws on the great Catholic convert, the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. He notes, "In Newman's day, every kind of interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles was permitted except for an explicitly Catholic one. Conversion for Newman became imperative once the Anglican hierarchy had explicitly rejected as unacceptable his attempt at a Catholic interpretation." Although personal interpretation was supposed to be given significant freedom, it required limitation, without which a believer would be totally cut off from tradition. This conundrum, which is at least as old as Luther's discovery of alternative Protestant theologies, confronts Anglicans today.
The final part, which comprises almost half of the book, it titled Church and Politics. Ratzinger's meditates on "Europe: A Heritage with Obligations for Christians." He points out problems with three "counterimages" of Europe: a pre-Christian paganism; what is often dubbed post-Christian, but what he calls "post-European"; and Marxism. The first image resonated with practitioners of National Socialism, which was "a renunciation of Christianity as alienation from the "beautiful" German "savagery"." The second elevates tolerance by excluding religion from the secular realm; in the process rational law dissolves into anarchy. This leaves opens the door to tyranny, since anarchy wearies of lawlessness and readily consents to force as a substitute.
The third image, Marxism, comes up with some frequency. Time and again, Ratzinger tactfully and gently corrects its errors. Rather than discuss Marx's economic theories, Ratzinger points out the problems of Marx's eschatology. Since human beings as such are secondary to the goal of communism, their dignity is not sacred. "In practical terms, those who act according to party logic, and only those, act in keeping with freedom. When party logic demands arrests and terror, then it goes without saying that such action, too, is in keeping with freedom, because, after all, it is consistent with the logic that leads to freedom." Such thinking cannot protect the rights and dignity of every human being.
Church, Ecumenism and Politics is engaging and informative. It offers valuable insight into the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI on matters of particular and far-reaching significance, which indicates that the Church is in very able hands.
The first part, On the Nature and Structure of the Church, contains a useful chapter, "The Primacy of the Pope and the Unity of the People of God"; it offers insight into the Cardinal's understanding of the responsibility of the pope, which responsibility is now his. The pope's relation to the Church, as an individual, is not only biblically sound—we find Paul speaking, as Paul, for the members of his community, and addressing other communities through their leaders, such as Peter—it also provides a framework for responsibility. Ratzinger uses Reginald Cardinal Pole's observations to work his way towards a pope who leads and guides his Church even in, perhaps especially through, personal suffering. As Pole observes: "The office of the papacy is a cross, indeed, the greatest of all crosses. For what can be said to pertain more to the cross and anxiety of the soul than care and responsibility for all the Churches throughout the world?" Ratzinger was reflecting on this cross long before it became his as pope.
Part two deals with Ecumenical Problems. Given the recent actions by the author, as Pope Benedict XVI, in respects to the struggling Anglican Church, "Problems and Prospects of the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue" is most enlightening. Although it will be some time before the effects of the olive branch offered to Anglicans by Pope Benedict are known, this section makes clear that when the pope acted, he did so with immense awareness of the issues at stake. In the appendix to this section, Ratzinger draws on the great Catholic convert, the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. He notes, "In Newman's day, every kind of interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles was permitted except for an explicitly Catholic one. Conversion for Newman became imperative once the Anglican hierarchy had explicitly rejected as unacceptable his attempt at a Catholic interpretation." Although personal interpretation was supposed to be given significant freedom, it required limitation, without which a believer would be totally cut off from tradition. This conundrum, which is at least as old as Luther's discovery of alternative Protestant theologies, confronts Anglicans today.
The final part, which comprises almost half of the book, it titled Church and Politics. Ratzinger's meditates on "Europe: A Heritage with Obligations for Christians." He points out problems with three "counterimages" of Europe: a pre-Christian paganism; what is often dubbed post-Christian, but what he calls "post-European"; and Marxism. The first image resonated with practitioners of National Socialism, which was "a renunciation of Christianity as alienation from the "beautiful" German "savagery"." The second elevates tolerance by excluding religion from the secular realm; in the process rational law dissolves into anarchy. This leaves opens the door to tyranny, since anarchy wearies of lawlessness and readily consents to force as a substitute.
The third image, Marxism, comes up with some frequency. Time and again, Ratzinger tactfully and gently corrects its errors. Rather than discuss Marx's economic theories, Ratzinger points out the problems of Marx's eschatology. Since human beings as such are secondary to the goal of communism, their dignity is not sacred. "In practical terms, those who act according to party logic, and only those, act in keeping with freedom. When party logic demands arrests and terror, then it goes without saying that such action, too, is in keeping with freedom, because, after all, it is consistent with the logic that leads to freedom." Such thinking cannot protect the rights and dignity of every human being.
Church, Ecumenism and Politics is engaging and informative. It offers valuable insight into the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI on matters of particular and far-reaching significance, which indicates that the Church is in very able hands.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Milton
From Sonnet 15:
For what can Warrs, but endless Warr still breed,
Till Truth, & Right from Violence be freed,
And Public Faith cleard from the shamefull brand
Of Public Fraud. In vain doth Valour bleed
While Avarice, & Rapine share the land.
Sometimes even the puritans get it right. I've been distracted by fine literature, but it's important to remember that Americans are still killing and being killed in at least two countries. And the bleeding shows no signs of abating anytime soon.
For what can Warrs, but endless Warr still breed,
Till Truth, & Right from Violence be freed,
And Public Faith cleard from the shamefull brand
Of Public Fraud. In vain doth Valour bleed
While Avarice, & Rapine share the land.
Sometimes even the puritans get it right. I've been distracted by fine literature, but it's important to remember that Americans are still killing and being killed in at least two countries. And the bleeding shows no signs of abating anytime soon.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
State of the Union
The new president bores me to tears, so I neither watched nor read his speech. I see little evidence that Obama understands the problem caused by our fiscal and monetary policies, and absolutely no evidence that he has the will to go about the crucial task of deleveraging our massive debt.
On the other hand, Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, as always, concerning where we are heading. A sample:
It is impossible to predict the time when confidence will be lost, but it can come quickly. Resorting to buying other paper currencies will not be of much help. When the dollar crashes, most likely the purchasing power of all currencies-since all countries hold dollars as a reserve-will go down as well.
This means that dollars and other currencies will go into buying consumer items, precious metals and other physical properties. Consumer prices will soar, as well as interest rates. The central bank will lose control; and the more they inflate, the worse the confidence becomes. The interest rates will respond to these efforts by rising sharply.
If the Fed tries to reverse the run on the dollar, interest rates will also soar, and the pain on the American citizens will be of such proportion that political chaos will result. Either scenario leads to political and social chaos-the third event, and the most dangerous.
On the other hand, Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, as always, concerning where we are heading. A sample:
It is impossible to predict the time when confidence will be lost, but it can come quickly. Resorting to buying other paper currencies will not be of much help. When the dollar crashes, most likely the purchasing power of all currencies-since all countries hold dollars as a reserve-will go down as well.
This means that dollars and other currencies will go into buying consumer items, precious metals and other physical properties. Consumer prices will soar, as well as interest rates. The central bank will lose control; and the more they inflate, the worse the confidence becomes. The interest rates will respond to these efforts by rising sharply.
If the Fed tries to reverse the run on the dollar, interest rates will also soar, and the pain on the American citizens will be of such proportion that political chaos will result. Either scenario leads to political and social chaos-the third event, and the most dangerous.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Keep them stateside
Too many wars fail to pass muster as just and necessary ones. Yet these are the type our government has been fighting lately. Opponents of these wars may get discouraged; indeed, it is difficult to avoid doing so. Yet the opposition to our wars is strong, and it is growing.
Lamentably, this growing opposition has effected no change as yet. The current president has won his Nobel Peace Prize, but he has done so while continuing the war in Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan. The Democrats in Congress are more considered with passing a shoddily assembled health care bill than doing anything to change our foreign policy, and the voters seem willing to go along with the President--for the time being, anyway.
But there is some good news to report. Certain states, including the one in which I live, are in the process of passing bills which restrict the Federal Government's ability to deploy the National Guard overseas without permission from the states. We don't really know if these bills will pass, or, if passed, they will be held up by courts if challenged by the Federal Government. These bills are nonetheless a step in the right direction.
As Steve Burns puts it:
Just take a look at our current situation: The United States exists in a permanent state of war, can even be said to be addicted to war, and all decision-making about the question of war has now been placed in the hands of one man: the President. Whatever we think of the current occupant of that office, this is clearly a dangerous, unhealthy and undemocratic state of affairs...
Congress no longer even bothers to declare war, even though it is the only body given authority by the constitution to do that. Instead, it passes "Authorizations for Use of Military Force" which are either based on blatant falsehoods, like the Iraqi Authorization, or are an unconstitutional abdication of Congressional war-making powers to the President, as with the Afghanistan Authorization, which says, in effect, "You go wherever you think you need to go, and for as long as you need to, Mr. President, in pursuit of the people who did 9/11, and we'll just sit here and sign the checks."
Make no mistake about it: the American people will not continue to fight these wars forever. And I don't mean that we'll win these wars and then suddenly return to a humbler foreign policy. Too many people make too much money off of war for it to simply end. But for that same reason, the American people will eventually tire of sending their sons and daughters to die in defense of vague causes in wars that never really end. The attempts by the States to reign in the Federal Government are a good start, and merit our full support.
Lamentably, this growing opposition has effected no change as yet. The current president has won his Nobel Peace Prize, but he has done so while continuing the war in Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan. The Democrats in Congress are more considered with passing a shoddily assembled health care bill than doing anything to change our foreign policy, and the voters seem willing to go along with the President--for the time being, anyway.
But there is some good news to report. Certain states, including the one in which I live, are in the process of passing bills which restrict the Federal Government's ability to deploy the National Guard overseas without permission from the states. We don't really know if these bills will pass, or, if passed, they will be held up by courts if challenged by the Federal Government. These bills are nonetheless a step in the right direction.
As Steve Burns puts it:
Just take a look at our current situation: The United States exists in a permanent state of war, can even be said to be addicted to war, and all decision-making about the question of war has now been placed in the hands of one man: the President. Whatever we think of the current occupant of that office, this is clearly a dangerous, unhealthy and undemocratic state of affairs...
Congress no longer even bothers to declare war, even though it is the only body given authority by the constitution to do that. Instead, it passes "Authorizations for Use of Military Force" which are either based on blatant falsehoods, like the Iraqi Authorization, or are an unconstitutional abdication of Congressional war-making powers to the President, as with the Afghanistan Authorization, which says, in effect, "You go wherever you think you need to go, and for as long as you need to, Mr. President, in pursuit of the people who did 9/11, and we'll just sit here and sign the checks."
Make no mistake about it: the American people will not continue to fight these wars forever. And I don't mean that we'll win these wars and then suddenly return to a humbler foreign policy. Too many people make too much money off of war for it to simply end. But for that same reason, the American people will eventually tire of sending their sons and daughters to die in defense of vague causes in wars that never really end. The attempts by the States to reign in the Federal Government are a good start, and merit our full support.
Monday, January 04, 2010
On square circles
A quick bit from Thomas Woods before I get back to my books:
The only answer that appears possible is this: the Church insists that thus-and-so must be done because justice demands it, even though it will make people, particularly those it was designed to help, materially worse off. However, no ecclesiastical document I have ever seen has taken this position. As I have said, these documents carry the assumption that their suggestions will accomplish their stated ends and increase the well-being of the least among us. That assumption, in turn, implies that the only thing standing between today and a more prosperous future is sufficient political will rather than constraints imposed by the very nature of things. That merely assumes the very thing that needs to be proven. And it begs the question yet again to declare that authority has spoken and the matter is closed – the very matter at issue is whether these subjects are of a qualitative nature to be susceptible of ecclesiastical resolution in the first place. If the law of returns, for instance, is an objective fact of nature (which it is), then the pope himself cannot declare it to be false, or expect success from policy prescriptions that ignore it, any more than he can fashion a square circle. It is no insult to papal authority to exclude the possibility of square circles.
As far as I can tell, Woods is the foremost Catholic champion of free market economics. I have no idea what kind of success he will have in causing members of the Church to rethink their policies, not because they are not well-intentioned, but because praxeological reasoning insists that their objectives are incompatible with their methods.
Anyone who is interested in the extent to which free market ideology is compatible with Church teaching would do well to read Woods's: The Church and the Market. I do not believe that his position is the only orthodox one--nor do I have any reason to think he believes as much--merely that it is firmly within the bounds of orthodoxy. And if it is true that the continuing economic debacle has shaken man's faith in markets, it is also true that the crisis compels men to ameliorate their ignorance about the economy. The works of Thomas Woods contribute positively toward that end.
The only answer that appears possible is this: the Church insists that thus-and-so must be done because justice demands it, even though it will make people, particularly those it was designed to help, materially worse off. However, no ecclesiastical document I have ever seen has taken this position. As I have said, these documents carry the assumption that their suggestions will accomplish their stated ends and increase the well-being of the least among us. That assumption, in turn, implies that the only thing standing between today and a more prosperous future is sufficient political will rather than constraints imposed by the very nature of things. That merely assumes the very thing that needs to be proven. And it begs the question yet again to declare that authority has spoken and the matter is closed – the very matter at issue is whether these subjects are of a qualitative nature to be susceptible of ecclesiastical resolution in the first place. If the law of returns, for instance, is an objective fact of nature (which it is), then the pope himself cannot declare it to be false, or expect success from policy prescriptions that ignore it, any more than he can fashion a square circle. It is no insult to papal authority to exclude the possibility of square circles.
As far as I can tell, Woods is the foremost Catholic champion of free market economics. I have no idea what kind of success he will have in causing members of the Church to rethink their policies, not because they are not well-intentioned, but because praxeological reasoning insists that their objectives are incompatible with their methods.
Anyone who is interested in the extent to which free market ideology is compatible with Church teaching would do well to read Woods's: The Church and the Market. I do not believe that his position is the only orthodox one--nor do I have any reason to think he believes as much--merely that it is firmly within the bounds of orthodoxy. And if it is true that the continuing economic debacle has shaken man's faith in markets, it is also true that the crisis compels men to ameliorate their ignorance about the economy. The works of Thomas Woods contribute positively toward that end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)