Free Trade? Fair Trade?

[Nihil Obstat]

So does that advocate...... statelessness?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1253732853' post='1971609']
So does that advocate...... statelessness?
[/quote]

I do. The State is a physical manifestation of the false idea that you have the right to initiate aggression against other people.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1253735031' post='1971630']
I do. The State is a physical manifestation of the false idea that you have the right to initiate aggression against other people.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So how do you wish to guarantee that basic human dignity is respected? Without some form of a State, I bet there'd be slavery. That's certainly not in keeping with Catholic ideals.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1253752325' post='1971846']
So how do you wish to guarantee that basic human dignity is respected? Without some form of a State, I bet there'd be slavery. That's certainly not in keeping with Catholic ideals.
[/quote]

You are intimating that the end of "upholding human dignity" or "preventing slavery" justifies initiating aggression against innocent people. The end does not justify the means. Catholics may not believe in consequentialism.

In addition, you appear to be suggesting that the institution of the State itself has not been the worst, most destructive force working [i]against[/i] human dignity for the past 10,000 years. This is not the case. The State perennially causes more violence than it prevents.

What is the draft but slavery? My question is dead serious. As for taxation, why not just round people up and make them work in camps for four months out of every year, so they can support the State? What is the difference between that and robbing them of a third of their income, which is the direct [i]fruit[/i] of [i]their[/i] [i]labor[/i]?

Nihil Obstat, I'm going to link to some articles here. I ask you to read them all, but if you read only one, let it be this first one. It is written by Joe Sobran, who wrote for many years for the very orthodox Catholic newspaper The Wanderer. [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran267.html"]The Reluctant Anarchist, by Joseph Sobran.[/url]

And another good article on the subject: [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html"]What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist, by Stephan Kinsella[/url]

And another good article on the subject: [url="http://mises.org/story/1855"]But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?, by Robert P. Murphy[/url]

An essay by Thomas Paine, who almost came to the full realization of what real human society is about and how it works. [url="http://mises.org/story/2897"]Society[/url]

Here is a good piece by Edmund Burke, before he was assimilated. [url="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=850&layout=html"]A Vindication of Natural Society.[/url]

The point is that society (a network of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges) is contradicted by the initiation of violence. There is a reason we call robbery, extortion, murder and rape "anti-social" behaviors. Society is voluntary. Initiating aggression is uncivilized. A society which creates a giant to hold a knife to everyone's throat, ceases, to the degree in which the individuals comprise it initiate violence, to become a society.

It is ridiculous to rob someone of his money at gunpoint, enslave him into fighting for you, then tell him it is to protect him from being robbed and enslaved.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 24, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

The State can, and has overstepped its authority throughout human history. I'm not saying it hasn't.

I will not, however, condemn the existence of a State. Jesus Christ did not, despite having ample reason to, our popes have not, and nor will I. In fact the Church has always stated that there does exist a legitimate diversity of opinion regarding political systems.

I will leave you with a few quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. After that, I invite you to clarify your stance, and then [b]I will have to ask you to, if you continue to comment, return to the subject of the OP[/b], as I am interested in discussing international trade methods, and not the legitimacy of political systems.

Thank you.



[quote]1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6[/quote]
[quote]1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and [size="5"][b]expect obedience[/b][/size] from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.[/quote]
[quote]1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22[/quote]
Note that this presupposes that the regime may indeed act.
[quote]1917 It is incumbent on those who exercise authority to strengthen the values that inspire the confidence of the members of the group and encourage them to put themselves at the service of others. Participation begins with education and culture. "One is entitled to think that the future of humanity is in the hands of those who are capable of providing the generations to come with reasons for life and optimism."34 [/quote]
Clearly exercising authority, in itself, is not to be condemned.
[quote]1919 Every human community needs an authority in order to endure and develop. [/quote]
A State can fulfill this role.
[quote] 1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means.

1922 The diversity of political regimes is legitimate, provided they contribute to the good of the community.

1923 Political authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and must guarantee the conditions for the exercise of freedom.[/quote]
Especially note 1923. "Political authority [...] MUST guarantee the conditions[...]." How does it enforce this guarantee?
[quote]1927 It is the role of the state to [b]defend and promote the common good[/b] of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level [/quote]


Now, as I said above, you may clarify your position. Please do not introduce any new arguments. If you wish to continue posting, I invite you to post as much as you want about international trade. That's all I have to say on the matter. While I cannot force you to do so, I would appreciate if you respect my request.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1253756630' post='1971893']
The State can, and has overstepped its authority throughout human history. I'm not saying it hasn't.

I will not, however, condemn the existence of a State. Jesus Christ did not, despite having ample reason to, our popes have not, and nor will I. In fact the Church has always stated that there does exist a legitimate diversity of opinion regarding political systems.

I will leave you with a few quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. After that, I invite you to clarify your stance, and then [b]I will have to ask you to, if you continue to comment, return to the subject of the OP[/b], as I am interested in discussing international trade methods, and not the legitimacy of political systems.

Thank you.






Note that this presupposes that the regime may indeed act.

Clearly exercising authority, in itself, is not to be condemned.

A State can fulfill this role.

Especially note 1923. "Political authority [...] MUST guarantee the conditions[...]." How does it enforce this guarantee?



Now, as I said above, you may clarify your position. Please do not introduce any new arguments. If you wish to continue posting, I invite you to post as much as you want about international trade. That's all I have to say on the matter. While I cannot force you to do so, I would appreciate if you respect my request.
[/quote]

Of course I will respect your request.

Authority, to paraphrase a colleague of mine, is the moral power to command, not coerce. Authority is not dependent upon force, nor is authority identical to power or force. All authority comes from God. And insofar as God [i]allows[/i] men to have power, all power comes from God. Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "Do you not know that I have the authority to put you to death, or to set you free?" This depends on your translation, of course. Some translations say "Do you not know that I have the [i]power[/i] to set you free?" Pontius Pilate did not have the authority to kill an innocent man. He had the power to do so.

All authority ultimately comes from God, but it is channeled through one of three conduits. One, it is directly given by God. Such is the case when it comes to the Pope, bishops and Priests. Second, authority may be voluntarily given by one individual to another. (A parishoner going to a spiritual director and surrendering his judgment to that person, an employee subjecting himself to the will of his employer, the wife marrying a husband and submitting to his judgment.) Lastly, there is natural authority, which parents exercise over their children.

None of these cases provide for violence to back up one's authority. Violence may be used against adults to defend oneself against physical attacks, not to punish disobedience. In a free society, we have a moral obligation to listen to [i]anyone[/i] who tells us to do that which is the moral thing to do. Not because that person merely told us to do something, however, but only because he echoes the authority of God and his law.

The State, as St. Augustine said, is a punishment for sin. So was full-time slavery. God sent many plagues upon the earth to punish his people. Some of them wore crowns. Politics is not unlike the ending of Ghostbusters: someone always thinks he can minimize the damage by choosing the form of the Destroyer, deciding for other people how they should suffer. The shape really doesn't matter. It's a Destroyer. And like the movie, private enterprise will eventually destroy the Destroyer. Unlike the movie, private enterprise will accomplish it peacefully. However, I don't expect it to happen anytime in the near (200 years) future. I don't remember where I heard it, but I remember it distinctly: "Jesus Christ, the king of the universe, will return at the moment when men despairingly and finally come to the realization that they are totally incapable of governing themselves." This is not to say that anyone knows the time or day, of course. The timing would simply be providential. But the statement, likely true, is not contradictory to the Faith in any way.

Jesus never said that the State was illegitimate. Nor did he say that [i]full[/i]-time slavery was illegitimate. That does not mean that the former is legitimate, nor that the latter was legitimate. It was the fullness of time for Jesus to come into the world. It was not the fullness of time for either of those ideas, though he did plant the seeds of freedom. The Sobran article takes the point a little further.

The Catholic Church has not, nor will it ever (as it cannot, being that it is a practical question and a moral contradiction of other, infallible teachings) infallibly declare that it is necessary to salvation for every Catholic to believe in the morality and efficacy of the State as a means of maintaining an order which is conducive to sanctity, or any other end. Nor has it, or will it ever infallibly declare that the State, [i]qua[/i] initiator of aggression and violence, should exist at all.

Political authority (interpersonal authority) can be exercised by every individual in a society, insofar as they echo God's law. They can act and guarantee the rights of individuals by A) refusing to violate the rights of other individuals, and B) stopping those who would violate the physical exercise of the rights of other individuals. There is no need, nor is there a justification to initiate violence against innocent people in order to secure these ends.

That is my clarification, and I will respect your request.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 24, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1253630057' post='1970982']
You probably shouldn't jump to conclusions on that. The data they thrive on and rejoice in are the truth of human behavior, based on human nature, a wondrous thing given to us by God. State economists? Not so much.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


What truth about human nature were they privy too that supplied them with the requisite data to build a whole economics model?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hassan' date='24 September 2009 - 03:23 AM' timestamp='1253777023' post='1972056']
What truth about human nature were they privy too that supplied them with the requisite data to build a whole economics model?
[/quote]

I will respond in a private message, per Nihil's request.

~Sternhauser

[jonyelmony]

Sternhauser, your belief in the markets is based off dogmatic ideology as apposed to a serious economic discussion. There are several cases on the micro economic level where government involvement improves peoples welfare. To suggest that such welfare gains are wrong because governement is "immoral" is ludicrous and the exact reason why no one takes Austrians seriously, they are blinkered idealogues. Public Goods, Common goods, externalities are all reality. If you don't want anyone to investigate the Russian Mafia, who should be investigating Al Quada, if Al Quada were to set off a nuclear blast in New York who would fund the rescue/clean up. If there was no Governement i can assure you there would be few if any Roads, Ports, Railways or electrical distribution, what would exist would be full of inneficient duplication.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 September 2009 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1253592446' post='1970864']
Every economic exchange where two people mutually agree on a price is a fair exchange. There are no losers in a free economic exchange. If the transaction were not considered beneficial by each party, then they would not make the transaction.
[/quote]

but only if you're looking at it solely from the aspect of commutative justice, and not also from the aspect of distributive justice..

Edited September 30, 2009 by Didymus

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Didymus' date='30 September 2009 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1254339052' post='1974989']
but only if you're looking at it solely from the aspect of commutative justice, and not also from the aspect of distributive justice..
[/quote]

Again, in accord with Nihil's request, I will respond by private message. Anyone else who would like to comment on what I have written, please do likewise.

~Sternhauser