Conservativeness as Defense against social justice?

[portarica]

The conservatives, I believe, agree with the objective (solidarity) but disagree with the method.

Subsidiarity, a long held Catholic and conservative principle, would allow the authority to the smallest community able to solve the problem. Achieving social justice at a higher level than needed often produces more injustice than justice.

The theory relies on the smallest competent authority, not on the absence of any authority.

How do we solve the problem of abortion and violence against women in poor inner cities or meth infused rural communities, is there a tiny community group that can address the issues that lead to abortion and violence against women?

Are there enough groups with the courage to do the work in those communities? How many people actually have the stones to enter those communities?

Peace

 

[o_mlly]

The theory relies on the smallest competent authority, not on the absence of any authority.

I don’t get your point. “Able” indicates “competence.” Are you suggesting something that I am perhaps missing? There is always an authority because the basis of the principle of subsidiarity is an expression of inalienable human freedom.

How do we solve the problem of abortion and violence against women in poor inner cities or meth infused rural communities, is there a tiny community group that can address the issues that lead to abortion and violence against women?

Are there enough groups with the courage to do the work in those communities? How many people actually have the stones to enter those communities?

Peace

The problem of abortion is a problem of individual choice. The family, the parish and the local community can provide programs to facilitate the right choice. But the problem remains the choice of one who posesses “inalienable human freedom.”

Violence against women is in the general category of violence against any citizen. In a society which gives to its governance a monopoly on the use of violence, one must look to local governance to resolve its unlawful use.

The use of illegal drugs falls in the same category as abortion. A personal choice is required and can be facilitated under the principle of subsidiarity by the user’s family, church, and community.

I think that we often fail to act as community because we falsely believe that some higher level of authority has taken the field and we relax in our obligations to our sisters and brothers.

I can’t speak for others; I have the stones.

Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility."

The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. CARITAS IN VERITATE

 

[portarica]

I don’t get your point. “Able” indicates “competence.” Are you suggesting something that I am perhaps missing? There is always an authority because the basis of the principle of subsidiarity is an expression of inalienable human freedom.

The problem of abortion is a problem of individual choice. The family, the parish and the local community can provide programs to facilitate the right choice. But the problem remains the choice of one who posesses “inalienable human freedom.”

Violence against women is in the general category of violence against any citizen. In a society which gives to its governance a monopoly on the use of violence, one must look to local governance to resolve its unlawful use.

The use of illegal drugs falls in the same category as abortion. A personal choice is required and can be facilitated under the principle of subsidiarity by the user’s family, church, and community.

While I agree that in the end it becomes an individuals choice, bad choices do not happen in a vacuum.

There are social and community norms that lead to increases in abortions or drug use.

Violence against women is not just in the general category of violence against any civilian.
The same type of thinking that leads to tolerance of violence against women is a close cousin to the thinking that lessens the value of unborn life as well.

Communities with high levels of violence, poor nutritional options, poverty and other issues provide a more difficult environment for families and individuals to intercede in a substantive manner . To say that we all have an inalienable personal freedom , ignores the reality that having such doesn’t overcome the obstacles that many face.

And perhaps that is where the difference between competence and just being "able " diverge. It is wonderful to think that in a perfect world without wars, illness,domestic violence, economic inequalities each neighbor of ours could rely on just a few to survive , but that is not the case.

Peace

 

[o_mlly]

While I agree that in the end it becomes an individuals choice, bad choices do not happen in a vacuum. There are social and community norms that lead to increases in abortions or drug use.

There is also the competing voice of conscience, God’s call to goodness written on every human heart, and His instrument, the Church, echoing His call to holiness.

Violence against women is not just in the general category of violence against any civilian.
The same type of thinking that leads to tolerance of violence against women is a close cousin to the thinking that lessens the value of unborn life as well.

Neither the general category of violence to citizens or the particular category of violence to women implies any sort of tolerance. Conservatives do not tolerate unlawful activity. (I have ACORN in mind as I write this sentence.

Communities with high levels of violence, poor nutritional options, poverty and other issues provide a more difficult environment for families and individuals to intercede in a substantive manner . To say that we all have an inalienable personal freedom , ignores the reality that having such doesn’t overcome the obstacles that many face.

Under the principle of subsidiarity, those communities unable to solve their problems may demand the help of the NEXT larger community of which it is part. That larger community is obligated to provide what it can to resolve the problems of its constituents. Conservatives think that jumping over the several larger communities and lurching to federalize every problem is in most cases inefficient, and often unust. Rarely, it is certainly justified but only when the intermediate authorities have shown themselves or may reasonable be judged incapable.

And perhaps that is where the difference between competence and just being "able " diverge. It is wonderful to think that in a perfect world without wars, illness,domestic violence, economic inequalities each neighbor of ours could rely on just a few to survive , but that is not the case.
Peace

There is no perfect world this side of the Parousia. And the liberal thinking that man can somehow perfect himself and his methods of social organization is foolishness and against Church teaching on the effects or Original sin.

Christ told us we would always have the poor. They are, I think, God’s instruments provoking us to responsd to His call charity.

 

[Darkbloom]

You say an example from Wikipedia makes something the most famous example of an a priori argument?

Yeash, you’re bitter. I invite you to do your own research. Maybe Google “bachelor” and “tautology” and see what comes up.

That aside, you are not using the same argument as the article in Wikipedia, when you conditionalized “conservative” to your definition of conservative you made the definition dependent on your experience of what "conservative " means.

The definition of all words are conditioned on experience, as language is a human construct. “Bachelor” comes by it’s meaning the same way “conservative” does, and the same logic holds for each.

For your argument to hold water you would have to argue that the idea of “conservative” doesn’t include a belief in small government. Are you really saying that? You’d have to be either dishonest or ignorant to make such a claim, so take your pick.

And since many, if not most , people believe that Bush and Reagan were conservatives, and you don’t , then an a priori argument , ipso facto, doesn’t exist in the argument you make.

Peace

Ah, I’ve taught you some Latin and a bit of logic. This is a good day.

Here’s some more for you: argumentum ad populum.

So you’re doubly wrong. Lot’s of people believing something doesn’t make it true. (Think the average person pre-Copernicus). And this is, without a doubt, an air tight a priori argument.

If you’d like to make more fallacious arguments so I can teach you more logic, be my guest.

 

[portarica]

Yeash, you’re bitter. I invite you to do your own research. Maybe Google “bachelor” and “tautology” and see what comes up.

The definition of all words are conditioned on experience, as language is a human construct. “Bachelor” comes by it’s meaning the same way “conservative” does, and the same logic holds for each.

For your argument to hold water you would have to argue that the idea of “conservative” doesn’t include a belief in small government. Are you really saying that? You’d have to be either dishonest or ignorant to make such a claim, so take your pick.

Ah, I’ve taught you some Latin and a bit of logic. This is a good day.

Here’s some more for you: argumentum ad populum.

So you’re doubly wrong. Lot’s of people believing something doesn’t make it true. (Think the average person pre-Copernicus). And this is, without a doubt, an air tight a priori argument.

If you’d like to make more fallacious arguments so I can teach you more logic, be my guest.

You obviously are just trying to learn as you go along .

My argument about the definition of conservative being not a priori is not an ad populum argument. It is not a priori, because you have an opinion about the meaning of “conservative” that differs from others. Your example about bachelor being a priori is true because the definition of bachelor means unmarried.

You don’t even agree with the definition of conservative in the dictionary, so the only way people can understand what you mean by “conservative” is by experience.

We could argue about this forever and you will continue to cite stuff that doesn’t apply to the types of arguments you are making , but in a way that makes my point about people using facetious arguments about conservatism to justify not following Jesus’ teachings about the least.

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

You obviously are just trying to learn as you go along .

Does that mean my philosophy degree has been revoked by you?

My argument about the definition of conservative being not a priori is not an ad populum argument.

Before you said the above, you said “And since many, if not most , people believe that Bush and Reagan were conservatives, and you don’t , then an a priori argument , ipso facto, doesn’t exist in the argument you make.”

This is blatant self contradiction.

It is not a priori, because you have an opinion about the meaning of “conservative” that differs from others. Your example about bachelor being a priori is true because the definition of bachelor means unmarried.

Okay, I’ll ask again, are you really saying that “conservative” does not imply a belief in small government? Answer the question this time, don’t duck it.

Like I said, you are either ignorant or lying if you say it doesn’t, so which is it?

You don’t even agree with the definition of conservative in the dictionary, so the only way people can understand what you mean by “conservative” is by experience.

Please quote the passage where I said I didn’t agree with the dictionary. I said that only one entry in the list you quoted spoke to politics, which is much different.

We could argue about this forever and you will continue to cite stuff that doesn’t apply to the types of arguments you are making , but in a way that makes my point about people using facetious arguments about conservatism to justify not following Jesus’ teachings about the least.

Peace

First, you’re either ignorant or just so stubborn; either way you are wrong.

Please explain why conservatives don’t do what Jesus preaches, but conservatives are way more philanthropic than liberals. Again, don’t duck or minimize this, but explain why the statistical data on philanthropy in the US belies what you say.

Furthermore, you don’t know me. You don’t know about the care I donate to my house bound father, the volunteer tutoring I do, the ESL classes I’m signing up to teach, the money I tithe to the Church and/or given via payroll deduction to the United Way.

You’ve answered no criticisms, you not explained the charity gap, you’ve never once spoke to the oft cited difference between disagreeing with charity and disagreeing with the mechanism of charity. All you’ve done is display your sanctimony and lack of capacity for rational argumentation.

 

[Darkbloom]

Charity Divide

Charity Divide

Conservative Definition:Conservative issues in America include beliefs in capitalism, anti-communism, patriotism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, Christianity, morality, law and order,a smaller federal government, and lower taxes.

bolds added

Bush was not a conservative says a very conservative think tank.

 

[traillius]

So if a social program doesn’t have a supreme goal that is the same as yours, are you OK with it if isn’t incongruent with your goals?

I can understand why you disagree with social policies that lead to the death of the uninsured elderly or lead to the death of the unborn because of insufficient prenatal care. Or with public policies that lead to unsafe food or drugs. But would you be OK with something like meals on wheels that has nothing to do with your “supreme” goals?

Peace

I don’t have a political opinion on 'meals on wheels ’ or such programs, aside from that no one should be forced to pay for them. Perhaps if government stuck to the role assigned it by the letter and spirit of the constitution, it would be able to allow more money to freely flow through the system, so that the people could better themselves, and the charities caring for those truly in need would recieve adequate private funding.
Are you okay with tax exempt status for religious organizations, with the only stipulation being no lawbreaking, and helping anyone truly in need, even with possible religious expression involved>?

 

[portarica]

Charity Divide

Charity Divide

Conservative Definition:Conservative issues in America include beliefs in capitalism, anti-communism, patriotism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, Christianity, morality, law and order,a smaller federal government, and lower taxes.

bolds added

Bush was not a conservative says a very conservative think tank.

Also from your source of information:

The Reagan model became the conservative standard for social, economic and foreign policy issues. The political transformation was such that historians and textbooks now routinely refer to the “The Age of Reagan” or “Reagan Era.”[8]

So the model “conservative” (from the same source as you get your definitions of conservative) increased the size of the federal government, increased the federal budget, generated huge deficits and cut programs that helped the poor.

So is your definition of conservative absolute? No, since as the Wikipedia source also suggested there is a range of beliefs.

Aside from that , you throwing out your degree is evidence of a resort to authority, an additional argumentative fallacy . I suggested you were still learning logic because you use that scholarly source Wikipedia for your back up and didn’t seem to fully grasp even the concept of “a priori”. Perhaps you can cite some stuff from your philosophy courses to show a more in depth knowledge of the actual usage of logic in arguments.

A good start would be the early A,B and C exercises in logic 101. You must know them , especially the ones with “if” and “not all”.

As to your charitable works, good for you. I don’t recall the particular fallacy with arguments that are off topic , but I’m sure you know the concepts involved.

Peace

 

[Darkbloom]

Also from your source of information:

The Reagan model became the conservative standard for social, economic and foreign policy issues. The political transformation was such that historians and textbooks now routinely refer to the “The Age of Reagan” or “Reagan Era.”[8]

So the model “conservative” (from the same source as you get your definitions of conservative) increased the size of the federal government, increased the federal budget, generated huge deficits and cut programs that helped the poor.

So is your definition of conservative absolute? No, since as the Wikipedia source also suggested there is a range of beliefs.

I’ll ask for at least the third time now. Do you really believe that “conservative” does not carry the connotation of being in favor of small government?

Aside from that , you throwing out your degree is evidence of a resort to authority, an additional argumentative fallacy . I suggested you were still learning logic because you use that scholarly source Wikipedia for your back up and didn’t seem to fully grasp even the concept of “a priori”. Perhaps you can cite some stuff from your philosophy courses to show a more in depth knowledge of the actual usage of logic in arguments.

I used Wikipedia for your benefit. You are very clearly illogical and I’ve shown as much several times.

You’re the one who suggested that facts were needed for an a priori argument, and you didn’t even know what an a priori arguments was until I referenced them for you.

I showed your blatant self contradiction in my last post.

Another example of your utter lack of logic: you accuse me of making an appeal to authority about charity by referencing a scholar of philanthropy? Would it be an appeal to authority to get a root canal because my dentist suggested it?

As to your charitable works, good for you. I don’t recall the particular fallacy with arguments that are off topic , but I’m sure you know the concepts involved.
Peace

You can’t recall a fallacy? Shocking. You must be too busy writing the annotations for the latest edition of Principa Mathematica to bother with such trifling matters.

And it is totally relevant. You go on and on that not being a socialist is not to be a true follower of Christ, yet you still haven’t addressed the fact that conservatives are way more philanthropic than liberals.

So, let me repeat the questions you will no doubt just skirt again.

How do you explain your belief that conservatives don’t help the least despite the charity divide?

What do you make of the distinction between charity and the mechanism of charity that has been cited several times in this thread?

Do you honestly believe that the idea of conservatism does not include a belief in small government?

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I’ll ask for at least the third time now. Do you really believe that “conservative” does not carry the connotation of being in favor of small government?

I used Wikipedia for your benefit. You are very clearly illogical and I’ve shown as much several times.

You’re the one who suggested that facts were needed for an a priori argument, and you didn’t even know what an a priori arguments was until I referenced them for you.

I showed your blatant self contradiction in my last post.

Another example of your utter lack of logic: you accuse me of making an appeal to authority about charity by referencing a scholar of philanthropy? Would it be an appeal to authority to get a root canal because my dentist suggested it?

You can’t recall a fallacy? Shocking. You must be too busy writing the annotations for the latest edition of Principa Mathematica to bother with such trifling matters.

And it is totally relevant. You go on and on that not being a socialist is not to be a true follower of Christ, yet you still haven’t addressed the fact that conservatives are way more philanthropic than liberals.

So, let me repeat the questions you will no doubt just skirt again.

How do you explain your belief that conservatives don’t help the least despite the charity divide?

What do you make of the distinction between charity and the mechanism of charity that has been cited several times in this thread?

Do you honestly believe that the idea of conservatism does not include a belief in small government?

Reading this dialogue reminds me of Fred’s new book…“Teaching the Pig to Dance.” Its a waste of the teacher’s time and it irritates the pig.

 

[Abu]

portarica
Now perhaps I am mistaken about thinking that the primacy of Jesus’ teachings is what makes one an orthodox Catholic. But that may just be a bias that I have.

There seems to be a warped idea of “social justice”, what it means and how it might be achieved.

The* Catechism of the Catholic Church* describes social justice concerns in #1928 to 1948.
Generally, social justice may be said to promote and protect the interests of the poor and marginalised, but it also requires the creation and maintenance of a well-ordered social mainstream. Normal functioning of the economic order and the political system are needed for society even to be capable of helping its weaker members. Social justice ideally aims at enabling all sectors to participate in society: “Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority” (CCC 1928).

Private property and its moral and productive use are important components of any just social order. When socialism and Marxism were the flavour, there was a deadening of the understanding of the right to private property among many proponents of social justice. Now that it is clear that coercive state systems provide neither material goods nor political liberties, social justice is more directed toward seeking greater equity and compassion within free enterprise market systems.

That Church tells us that socialism is evil, and why. She also gives us Jesus’ Parable in which He rewards only those who are faithful, prudent and industrious with the master’s money. She promotes a free enterprise society built on justice, fidelity, prudence, industriousness, private property, subsidiarity, love and peace. Free enterprise is not “greed driven” it is common good driven for the welfare of the greatest number and dependant on consumer satisfaction and competition, dependant on the laws of cause and effect involving God-given reason, and based on a standard social principle of Christ’s Church – subsidiarity. The crux is that Jesus did not condemn the possession of riches.

Conservatives tend to base their philosophy on these premises whereas democrats or liberals tend to look more to socialist principles.

 

[Black_Rose]

That Church tells us that socialism is evil, and why. She also gives us Jesus’ Parable in which He rewards only those who are faithful, prudent and industrious with the master’s money. She promotes a free enterprise society built on justice, fidelity, prudence, industriousness, private property, subsidiarity, love and peace. Free enterprise is not “greed driven” it is common good driven for the welfare of the greatest number and dependant on consumer satisfaction and competition, dependant on the laws of cause and effect involving God-given reason, and based on a standard social principle of Christ’s Church – subsidiarity. The crux is that Jesus did not condemn the possession of riches.

Conservatives tend to base their philosophy on these premises whereas democrats or liberals tend to look more to socialist principles.

Does anyone here read actual socialist rhetoric in order to gain familiarity with the rudimentary tenets of the ideology instead of strawman perceptions of it? For example, read some of Henry CK Liu’s articles and tell me where he is judgmental about other people’s possessions and assails other people’s virtues? To the contrary, his articles are polemics on what he perceives the unjust monetary and trade regime of neoliberal economics and US imperialist militarism to enforce this regime by force. Socialists tend to criticize institutions for facilitating and providing incentives for vice not supposedly greedy individuals acting within those institutions.

I posted this earlier…

But I do not know any socialist who condemns individual people for being wealthy; most socialists blame the institution of capitalism for extolling the vice of greed as virtue often at the expense of the working classes (both nationally and internationally) dignity, welfare, and standard of living. No socialist harbors a grudge against Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson because they are millionaires, assuming they did not already squander all of their money from lucrative multi-year contracts. Their large salaries are not only the result of their talent since baseball players were paid much less (in real terms) decades ago (for instance Babe Ruth’s salary, the ne plus ultra of baseball players, was about a million USD per year in inflation adjusted terms), but due to the increased profitability of baseball and better bargaining position of the players. Naturally, they (and their agents) would seek to maximize their salaries and exploit their bargaining positions; it does not make them greedy or evil.

 

[buffalo]

G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day on Economics:Neither Socialism nor Capitalism

 

[Abu]

henryckliu.com/page222.html
Henry C.K. Liu
Accordingly, a spontaneously working market, where prices act as guides to action, cannot take account of what people need or deserve, because it operates according to a neutral distribution system which nobody has designed. Such a distribution system cannot be just or unjust.

And the idea that things ought to be designed in a ‘just’ manner means, in effect, that one must abandon the market and turn to a planned economy in which somebody decides how much each ought to have. And the price for that justice is the complete abolition of personal liberty.

Black_Rose(#74)
read some of Henry CK Liu’s articles

This is the Marxist claptrap that “the price for that justice is the complete abolition of personal liberty.”

In contrast, As Fr John Corapi explains:
“The common error is to think that socialism helps the poor and disenfranchised. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out as long ago as 1891 in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum, socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the very sources of capital.”

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and worse crimes. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West. It’s time to face reality.

There’s no substitute for the economic laws discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics, implemented in free enterprise, but those economists and central bankers who prostitute those laws by their foolish meddling create injustices which plague every economy.

 

[buffalo]

Tradition Family Property

Revolution and Counter-Revolution

This terrible enemy has a name: It is called the Revolution.

Its profound cause is an explosion of pride and sensuality that has inspired, not one system, but, rather, a whole chain of ideological systems. Their wide acceptance gave rise to the three great revolutions in the history of the West: the Pseudo-Reformation, the French Revolution, and Communism.2

Pride leads to hatred of all superiority and, thus, to the affirmation that inequality is an evil in itself at all levels, principally at the metaphysical and religious ones. This is the egalitarian aspect of the Revolution.

Sensuality, per se, tends to sweep aside all barriers. It does not accept restraints and leads to revolt against all authority and law, divine or human, ecclesiastical or civil. This is the liberal aspect of the Revolution.

Both aspects, which in the final analysis have a metaphysical character, seem contradictory on many occasions. But they are reconciled in the Marxist utopia of an anarchic paradise where a highly evolved mankind, “emancipated” from religion, would live in utmost order without political authority in total freedom. This, however, would not give rise to any inequality.

The Pseudo-Reformation was a first revolution. It implanted, in varying degrees, the spirit of doubt, religious liberalism, and ecclesiastical egalitarianism in the different sects it produced.

The French Revolution came next. It was the triumph of egalitarianism in two fields: the religious field in the form of atheism, speciously labeled as secularism; and the political field through the false maxim that all inequality is an injustice, all authority a danger, and freedom the supreme good.

Communism is the transposition of these maxims to the socioeconomic field.

These three revolutions are episodes of one single Revolution, within which socialism, liturgicism, the politique de la main tendue (policy of the extended hand), and the like are only transitional stages or attenuated manifestations.

more…

 

[Black_Rose]

This is the Marxist claptrap that “the price for that justice is the complete abolition of personal liberty.”

Here is Liu’s quote in its proper context:

In Hayek’s social philosophy, value and merit are and ought to be two distinctly separate issues. Individuals should be remunerated purely on the basis of value and not in accordance with any concept of justice, whether it be the Puritan ethic or egalitarianism.

Hayek went a far as to deny that the concept of social justice has any meaning whatever, on the basis that justice refers to rules of individual conduct. Since no rules of the conduct of individuals can determine how the good things of life should be distributed, the question of justice is mute. Since a free market is the natural outcome of a multitude of individual decisions, how the market decides is amoral.

Accordingly, a spontaneously working market, where prices act as guides to action, cannot take account of what people need or deserve, because it operates according to a neutral distribution system which nobody has designed. Such a distribution system cannot be just or unjust.

And the idea that things ought to be designed in a ‘just’ manner means, in effect, that one must abandon the market and turn to a planned economy in which somebody decides how much each ought to have. And the price for that justice is the complete abolition of personal liberty.

Actually, it was Liu’s summary of Friedrich von Hayek’s social philosophy not the expression of his personal views. Liu did not introduce his concept of justice, but invoked Hayek’s for the purpose of his critique: according to Liu, Hayek denies the concept of “social justice” because he defines justice in the context of individual liberty and personal conduct. Hayek argues that while the market itself is a proper exercise of human liberty in the economic sphere even though it does not embody a concept of “justice”, market outcomes themselves are neither just nor unjust but simply amoral. To impose morality or pursue justice in the economic sphere, one would have to abandon the amoral free market which would be tantamount to the abolition of liberty. (This seems to be an accurate summary of Hayek’s views expressed in his book The Road to Serfdom.) In other words, there is a trade off as economic justice and economic liberty are mutually exclusive.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose (#74)
Socialists tend to criticize institutions for facilitating and providing incentives for vice

There’s no substitute for the economic laws discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics, implemented in free enterprise, but those economists and central bankers who prostitute those laws by their foolish meddling create injustices which plague every economy.

What is your system for “social justice”?

 

[Darkbloom]

Here is Liu’s quote in its proper context:

Actually, it was Liu’s summary of Friedrich von Hayek’s social philosophy not the expression of his personal views. Liu did not introduce his concept of justice, but invoked Hayek’s for the purpose of his critique: according to Liu, Hayek denies the concept of “social justice” because he defines justice in the context of individual liberty and personal conduct. Hayek argues that while the market itself is a proper exercise of human liberty in the economic sphere even though it does not embody a concept of “justice”, market outcomes themselves are neither just nor unjust but simply amoral. To impose morality or pursue justice in the economic sphere, one would have to abandon the amoral free market which would be tantamount to the abolition of liberty. (This seems to be an accurate summary of Hayek’s views expressed in his book The Road to Serfdom.) In other words, there is a trade off as economic justice and economic liberty are mutually exclusive.

Black Rose, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but you are trying to defend a blatantly materialistic and evil form of economic organization that has precisely zero instances of successful application in the real world.

If your only argument for something so clearly wrong is links to Liu, you should save the key strokes and quit.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Liu is not extraordinary.