← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis

FAITH AND THE DISMAL SCIENCE

Thread ID: 14307 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-06-24

Wayback Archive

Walter Yannis [OP]

2004-06-24 06:33 | User Profile

Fleming rips Woods a new one.

Whoa.

[URL=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/2004/06/23/FAITH_AND_THE_DISMA]Chronicles.[/URL] Walter

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

FAITH AND THE DISMAL SCIENCE

Our old friend Tom Woods has painted himself into a corner. Portraying himself as an uncompromising ultratraditionalist who will have no truck either with the Novus Ordo or with anyone who does not condemn the Orthodox to Hell, he nonetheless takes it upon himself to contradict the Church’s fundamental teachings on morality and society. Woods’s attempt to limit his attack to the encyclicals of Leo XIII and his successors is at best disingenuous, since the Church has spoken with one voice on our responsibility, both individual and collective, to provide for the poor and to practice economic justice. The voice was and is the voice of Christ. Woods is not rejecting merely this or that Pope or even the traditions of the Church: He is rejecting the teachings of Christ. If he or his libertarian friends dispute this statement, let them cite the Scriptural passages and authoritative Fathers and theologians who can refute it.

And for what mess of pottage is young Thomas selling his Catholic and Christian birthright? For the economic theories of the Austrian school, which he regards not simply as theories but as scientific truths as rock-solid as the Pythagorean Theorem or the formula for DNA. Let us set aside, for the sake of argument, the authority of the Church or of Christ Himself, and look only at this assertion. Since Adam Smith, there have been many economic theories, some of them more probable than others, and on certain questions there is broad—though hardly universal agreement; on others none at all. Even major economic thinkers on basically the same side—say Friedman, Rothbard, and Stigler—disagree on many things. How does a non-economist—like Woods, his mentor Lew Rockwell, or me—decide which of their writings is Holy Writ, which is apostolic apocrypha, and which is arrant heresy? I don’t know and neither do they.

Science is a slippery term because in English we use it primarily to mean a hard science like physics and chemistry or microbiology. Sociology and economics are only metaphorically sciences in this strict sense. Of course any disciplined body of knowledge is also a science, as theology and literary criticism are sciences, but these looser sciences do not presume to dictate absolute rules on the order of 2+2=4. Aristotle settled this question long ago, and it is one of the prime mistakes of the modernists since Descartes to pretend that there can be an absolute science of human behavior or society. If Woods were consistent in his logic, he would have to set all the teachings of the social sciences against the teachings of the Church. He would of course argue that economics is somehow different, but who would agree with him?

In championing the social sciences over the magisterium, Woods is adopting an old, though discredited line of thought going back to the Averroists, namely, that revelation and philosophy are independent of each other. The Church rejected this reasoning a long time ago, if only because it implies that the teachings of the Church are incompatible with the truth as discovered by reason. One may, of course, declare the Church’s traditions to be hogwash, but one cannot at the same time claim to be Catholic.

One of the sources of Woods’ confusion is that he does not distinguish between economics as an analytical tool subject to verification and economic philosophy, which is a branch of ethical and political theory. These are quite distinct, just as distinct as evolutionary theory and social Darwinism. I might generally endorse Adam Smith’s analysis of markets, as I do, while repudiating his moral philosophy (The Theory of Moral Sentiments), as I also do. Put simply, a mathematician has the right to instruct the Church on the rules of geometry, but he has no right to tell the Pope how those rules are to be applied, for example, in the construction of a Church. To take a trivial example, the sphere might be a perfect shape, mathematically considered, but it is hardly the right shape for a Church.

Let us then for the sake of argument assume that the school of Mises and Hayek and Rothbard is entirely right in its economic analysis of how markets and business cycles work—though not even the most scientific discipline has arrived at such absolute truth. If they are correct, they can predict the results of political decisions that constrain the market—zoning restrictions applied to the centro storico of Rome and the Borgo Pio (the neighborhood beside the Vatican). What they cannot do—as a real advocate of the free market is supposed to understand—is dictate our preferences. What if I prefer to see the Campo dei Fiori as it is and do not want the monument to the burned heretic Giordano Bruno to be torn down and replaced by a McDonald’s or the ruined Theater of Pompey turned into a Wal-Mart? How can an economist presume to tell me I am wrong?

Who made Mises or Rockwell or Woods the moral and aesthetic dictators of the human race? Of course, they would respond that they don’t care what our moral or aesthetic preference might be, so long as we do not impose it by the government. I realized the childishness of this argument long ago, when I proposed a solution to the censorship problem. “Let’s take government out of the picture,” I suggested. You can sell any kind of pornography anywhere you like and I can burn down your store—it will be up to you to defend your premises. Oh, but protection of private property is a sacred duty of government. Really? More sacred than protecting the innocent? When push comes to shove, the libertarian always invokes the power of the state to protect what he wants, and he sees no contradiction when other leftists want to use the state to protect what they want. Yes, other leftists.

Let us be clear what the argument is and is not about. Neither I nor my colleagues are collectivists or socialists. We utterly condemn and repudiate Marxism in all its forms. We also seek to limit rather than to expand the power of the state. As I used to say to my old friend Murray Rothbard: Let us agree on dismantling 90% of what the US government does, and until we succeed, let us postpone all argument about the other 10%. I have also argued, far more explicitly and coherently than the Austrians, against the welfare state that is a mockery of Christian charity up to and including Social Security. What Woods and Rockwell are arguing for, however, is not merely the limitation of the state to protection of their interests. No, they are explicitly denying the moral order and, because that argument has limited appeal, they attempt to fool their followers by pretending to champion economic freedom against its enemies, whether those enemies are Marxists or collectivist Catholics. To imply that Leo XIII—or any Pope before Paul VI was any kind of socialist—is dishonest.

Yes, Popes have made mistakes and Church Councils have gone astray and received correction from later Councils, but the Tradition of the Church is infallible. And, to give no offense to our sincere Protestant friends, I am happy, for the sake of this argument, to stipulate any reasonable cut-off date—say A.D. 1000 or even 600—because the catholic and orthodox traditions of the Church have spoken with one voice, not only on the nature of the Trinity but also on man’s moral responsibilities.

The Church has always repudiated both Communism and Liberalism (that is, the free-market individualism preached by Smith and Mill). In advocating social responsibility for employers’ and governments, 19th- and 20th-century Popes were simply confronting the challenges of their own age, just as the earliest Popes confronted the challenges of Arianism and Monophysitism, Goths and Lombards. If Tom Woods and his libertarian buddies want to preach a different social gospel, they would do well to look for another religion. What is the point of clinging to the formalities of a Latin mass, whose language they do not know, if they are willing to jettison the teachings of Christ and his Church on which their hope of salvation depends? Of all the heresies the Church has faced in its history, the Austrian heresy must be the pettiest. Give it up, friend Thomas, and return to the Church.

P.S. I am posting this as a Hard Right column but also as a contribution to the CRO Blog. Please answer or comment on the blog.

|

darkstar

2004-06-24 17:44 | User Profile

'Who made Mises or Rockwell or Woods the moral and aesthetic dictators of the human race? Of course, they would respond that they don’t care what our moral or aesthetic preference might be, so long as we do not impose it by the government. I realized the childishness of this argument long ago, when I proposed a solution to the censorship problem. “Let’s take government out of the picture,” I suggested. You can sell any kind of pornography anywhere you like and I can burn down your store—it will be up to you to defend your premises. Oh, but protection of private property is a sacred duty of government. Really? More sacred than protecting the innocent? When push comes to shove, the libertarian always invokes the power of the state to protect what he wants, and he sees no contradiction when other leftists want to use the state to protect what they want. Yes, other leftists.'

The idiocy of these claims is breathtaking. Not only does Rockwell care about others' moral preferences [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/moralrules.html[/url], he has expressed himself rather forcefully on them in any number of cases. As to libertarians who would be quite happy to hypothetically shoot Fleming without government help (when he hypothetically comes for their store): well, good ole' Flemin' never heard of them folk. ( [url]http://hanshoppe.com[/url] ) 'Are they after Aristotle?'

Moreover, most libertarians believe in having the government protect property AND protecting minors--since minors cannot give their consent. [url]http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-206.htm[/url]

I will leave off discussion of Fleming's other ramblings. Nice magazine you got there, bud, too bad you're in it....

Buster

2004-06-24 21:37 | User Profile

The rift between the paleos and libertarians only widens with each year. Only Sobran seems to awkwardly straddle the two. As far as I can tell he considers himself of a Christian anarchist--not an easy task.

The John Randolph Club link at Chronicles is now dead, and will probably soon be gone. Where or if people will regroup remains to be seen.

darkstar

2004-06-25 00:04 | User Profile

I don't agree at all. I think a better way of understanding the situation is that Chronicles has been slouching toward irrelevance for a while now, and only occasionaly finding its way back toward the light.

Palecons at the Constitution Party and AmCon seem, in fact, to be getting closer to libertarians, while the libertarian community has steadily been moving toward inclusion of more and more conservative-minded thinkers.

The trade issue remains the largest stumbling block.

Walter Yannis

2004-06-25 06:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Buster]The rift between the paleos and libertarians only widens with each year. Only Sobran seems to awkwardly straddle the two. As far as I can tell he considers himself of a Christian anarchist--not an easy task.

The John Randolph Club link at Chronicles is now dead, and will probably soon be gone. Where or if people will regroup remains to be seen.[/QUOTE]

I perceive a growing awareness among Catholics that one can't be a libertarian and a Catholic anymore than one can be a Marxist and a Catholic. Both of those combinations were tried, and both failed.

Catholic social doctrine is a whole-cloth sort of thing. One can't accept one part of Catholic teaching - like, say, private property and free enterprise - and then reject the whole web of other concepts that build the very organic social matrix within which private property and free enterprise adhere, such as marriage & family, organizational subsidiarity, and solidarity.

I think that Fleming and others, like me, are realizing that Distributism, insofar as it incorporates faithfully the Catholic whole-cloth approach to man, is the only way forward out of this consumerist nightmare the Pope calls the "Culture of Death."

You know, I had dinner with an old friend and colleague (and fellow Catholic) not long ago, and we discussed Distributism at length. He's a real libertarian, and makes many of the same arguments as our own right honorable Darkstar. We went through the whole Distributist program - end corporations, end usury, end advertising. He's a good lawyer, and he debated all of those topics worthily (he got the better of me, I must admit).

But I think the entire conversation came down to something he said when we were discussing mass media advertising, and the fraud on the public inherent in its carefully planned psychological pitch to our most basic needs and desires. He said something to the effect that "hey, if somebody's stupid enough to buy a pair of jeans because on some unconscious level they believe that if they buy them they can sleep with the girl in the ad, then screw 'em. They deserve what they get."

Now, I used to be a libertarian, and I said many similar things. But I see now that this was childish and wrong. It seems to me that very often libertarians are motivated by a desire to turn the world into two classes: hucksters and chumps. Libertarians - especially the Randian types - want desparately to feel themselves to float high above the herd. Their philosophy proceeds from those childish emotional prompts. I say this because I realize that I was one of them in my youth (then reality mugged me a few times).

But the whole notion of chumping others violates the principle of solidarity. We're all in this together in a very fundamental way. Society is an organism, it's not just a collection of individuals. Pace Ayn Rand, there really is a collective brain. Private property and free enterprise work only within that organistic matrix. These institutions are subsidiary to the social organism. They are tools - albeit very important tools - to the good functioning of the social organism, but in the final analysis they are merely means to the end.

And the end is the health of society for the greater Glory of God.

This is the mistake of the libertarians, and it is a classic one. They rip a component from the body of the whole, and then place that component above all. Like our dear Franco, of happy memory, who idolatrously repeated time and again that "race comes first" thereby inviting all of us Christians to worship his favourite golden calf, the libertarians place the free market over all, and thereby break the First Commandment of God.

Walter

darkstar

2004-06-25 18:30 | User Profile

'It seems to me that very often libertarians are motivated by a desire to turn the world into two classes: hucksters and chumps' Could be. I don't think so, but this is just a personal observation about some libertarians' psychological make-up.

'Libertarians - especially the Randian types - want desparately to feel themselves to float high above the herd. Their philosophy proceeds from those childish emotional prompts.' Total garbage. Libertarian philosophies have to be assessed on their merits, not Yannis's attempts to play Freud.

Buster

2004-06-25 20:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Buster]The John Randolph Club link at Chronicles is now dead, and will probably soon be gone. Where or if people will regroup remains to be seen.[/QUOTE]

Allow me to amend. The link is dead but the billboard is up for the 2004 JRC meeting in San Antonio this November.

I won't be there.

I hear the Alamo is a big let down...