Homeowners and neighborhoods under Biden

[HarryStotle]

Sorry, you were saying libertarianism was compatible with Catholicism?

Quite compatible…

https://www.youtube.com/user/TomWoodsTV

 

[StudentMI]

Lol you’re citing Thomas Woods? I read The Church and the Market. Besides being a rehash of long debunked Austrian economics, it fundamentally disagrees with Church doctrine on social problems. The distributists, if I remember right, roasted the ever loving heck out of it when it came out and the revised edition did little to address their criticisms.

 

[Jeanne_S]

As Dennis Prager says,Everything the ,left touches,it ruins.

 

[StudentMI]

As a principle to guide political life, it is NOT true to say Libertarianism is NOT reconcilable with Catholicism. Tom Woods is both Catholic and Libertarian and there are many others who could make the case.

Irreconcilable sets a very high threshold. I doubt it is defensible.

I’m not going to quote ad nauseam passages from Catholic documents extolling the state and asserting its right to coercion. I assume you already know of them and are dismissing them.

I’m going to focus on Tom Woods. First off, if you assert that Tom Woods can be Catholic and libertarian, you must also admit one can be democrat and Catholic and not criticize those Catholics who voted for Biden. Not saying you did this but just advising you you can’t.

Second off, Tom Woods is a fan of Murray Rothbard. Rothbard, in his classic work The Ethics of Liberty, said that markets in babies were ethically fine and should be allowed. Markets. In human babies. He also wrote the following. I’m just going to leave it here without comment.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)

Children and Rights | Mises Institute

 

[Odilon]

You’ll better understand the Catholic teaching on the authority if legitimate authority.

The Catholic teaching on legitimate government authority ( which I believe in) has nothing to do with said government putting certain people in certain neighborhoods. That would be a government policy (a secular policy) that I would oppose and I have every right as a citizen to oppose it and work to change it.

 

[StudentMI]

The Catholic teaching on legitimate government authority ( which I believe in) has nothing to do with said government putting certain people in certain neighborhoods. That would be a government policy (a secular policy) that I would oppose and I have every right as a citizen to oppose it and work to change it.

Since you believe in “full on liberty” do you care to address the Rothbard quote above?

 

[Odilon]

Chrostians who literally accorrding to Scripture, held everything, housing no doubt included, in common?

They were a distinct minority at that time, so they banded together for mutual support and religious worship. We live in a very different way right now in this modern era. We work our own separate jobs, live in our own houses with our own families and our community comes mostly from worshipping together and pooling our individual resources for charitable activities. There is nothing wrong in wanting to live in neighborhoods dictated by the amount of house one can afford.

 

[StudentMI]

They were a distinct minority at that time, so they banded together for mutual support and religious worship. We live in a very different way right now in this modern era. We work our own separate jobs, live in our own houses with our own families and our community comes mostly from worshipping together and pooling our individual resources for charitable activities. There is nothing wrong in wanting to live in neighborhoods dictated by the amount of house one can afford.

Yes a distinct minority at the time with no lesson for the laity of today. No story here, keep walking, nothing to see.

 

[Odilon]

Since you believe in “full on liberty” do you care to address the Rothbard quote above?

I disagree with it, I am not an uncaring nut like he seems to be. The belief I have concerning “full on liberty” coincides with the belief that the Founders had on the issue. They would have been appalled at the thought of the concept of a liberty that would allow for the killing of babies in the womb, yet they would have supported the idea of “freedom of association” for the people and against the government forcing people to live side by side with people whom they did not want to. The only thing the government should do is to prohibit any discrimination against those who could afford to live in a particular neighborhood and I have no problems with those kind of laws.

 

[StudentMI]

In other words you don’t believe in full on liberty. Nor did the founders, really, believe in the right of people to live amongst those they chose if you consider the Native Americans.

Is there something else about certain people that bothers you?

 

[otjm]

Hoping someone can breakdown what Biden’s plan is a little clearer as someone who’s looking to buy a home next year.

I have no clue as to what Biden’s plan amounts to.

All I can say is that Bill Clinton had a plan to improve home ownership. I was in REal Estate at the time and we referred to it, not entirely jokingly, as the “mirror test” - that is, if you could make a fog on a mirror (showing you were breathing) you could get a loan.

It wasn’t quite that bad, but is was bad. There is a phrase “the rule of unintended consequences” and one of the unintended consequences was that it allowed people who were not that financially stable to get a loan; the rules ended up being abused, or used in ways unintended and was part of the cause of the real estate crash.

Interest rates are very low historically, and prices seem to me to be astronomical.

That is not meant to be taken as a warning to not but a house; but hopefully will give a bit of perspective. If you can afford to buy a home now without reference to Joe’s plan, then do so. And don’t wait for Joe to put forth the plan in detail; that plan may or may not ever come to fruition.

 

[Odilon]

Yes a distinct minority at the time with no lesson for the laity of today. No story here, keep walking, nothing to see.

Oh, I agree, it is a very good lesson for the laity of today, a laity who in this country are still at liberty to make such a decision for themselves.

 

[StudentMI]

My position is that fear mongering over the poor is disgusting and unChristian. Our government has the right by its own laws to move people into publicly subsidized housing in a neighborhood. If one doesnt like such a law, which I think reeks of classism and something else, don’t know what to tell them.

 

[Odilon]

Correct. The government does not have the authority to dictate where one lives - such a thing is called freedom for. The government does have the authority in certain instances like having laws to prevent discrimination against others who can afford to live in a certain neighborhood. We are all to be treated equally regardless of race or creed.

 

[StudentMI]

Can you give me a quote restricting the right of governments to move people from a poor neighborhood into a better neighborhood?

 

[Odilon]

My position is that fear mongering over the poor is disgusting and unChristian. Our government has the right by its own laws to move people into publicly subsidized housing in a neighborhood. If one doesnt like such a law, which I think reeks of classism and something else, don’t know what to tell them.

We are also talking about two different government here… What business is it of the Federal government interfering in local zoning laws in the first place? There is no provision in the Federal Constitution for such an action - none whatsoever! “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” - 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Odilon]

Can you give me a quote restricting the right of governments to move people from a poor neighborhood into a better neighborhood?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It helps to define the division of power between the federal government and the state governments. - The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Now, concerning and individual state or city, that would be a totally different matter.

 

[StudentMI]

What business is it of the Federal government interfering in local zoning laws in the first place? There is no provision in the Federal Constitution for such an action - none whatsoever!

There is in the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. In addition please don’t go citing the 10th amendment. People cite that when they have a lost cause.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

As a principle to guide political life, it is NOT true to say Libertarianism is NOT reconcilable with Catholicism. Tom Woods is both Catholic and Libertarian and there are many others who could make the case.

Irreconcilable sets a very high threshold. I doubt it is defensible.

I’m not going to quote ad nauseam passages from Catholic documents extolling the state and asserting its right to coercion. I assume you already know of them and are dismissing them.

I’m going to focus on Tom Woods. First off, if you assert that Tom Woods can be Catholic and libertarian, you must also admit one can be democrat and Catholic and not criticize those Catholics who voted for Biden. Not saying you did this but just advising you you can’t.

Given that you are the one arguing that Tom Woods as a libertarian can’t be Catholic then (since you are the one holding the necessary logical implication) you must be the one arguing Catholics cannot vote for Joe Biden…

Since I don’t accept any of your premises why are you attempting to saddle ME with the implications of YOUR logic.

Since I “must” not admit any of your thinking your I-can’t-make-the-case-for-Catholics-not-voting-for-Biden isn’t as neat and clean or solid an argument as you make it out to be, especially since you haven’t demonstrated a logically tight parallel between Woods / Libertarianism and Biden/Catholicism.

The idea that Woods, by endorsing certain fundamental principles of Rothbard, must accept every one of his thoughts is by no means a strong argument. Ergo, perhaps Rothbard - if your argument holds - might have views that are antithetical to Catholicism, but you haven’t shown that Woods agrees with those particular points.

I am not prone to accept someone’s interpretation of the views of others especially based upon quotations absent context, but I will look into it.

 

[StudentMI]

I am not prone to accept someone’s interpretation of the views of others especially based upon quotations absent context, but I will look into it.

Lol read the entire chapter and tell me I distorted any of it. You’re excusing a man calling for the right to murder babies… which is oddly abortion-like.

Tom Woods was called out for supporting Rothbard by the distributists with just that quote. Guess what he never did? He never said he disagreed with it.