His road from libertarianism was not actually understanding it nor actually understanding catholic teaching. There’s a good reason why Austro-libertarian scholars are so predominantly catholic.
@@sorcyboi2848 I would advise you to start with the article "The Four Liberalisms" written by Kuehnelt-Leddihn. This will give you an overview of the historical context and additional references.
@@suntzu7727 he understands libertarianism better than libertarians, which is why he’s not one anymore. All you have to do is read the not very long article yourself to find out why if your ego can handle the terrible possibility that you may actually be wrong. Happy to answer any actual clarifying questions you may have after doing so.
Like for Feser, great thinker. We all to some extent go through a phase where we think we have the final word on some issue or another without having thought through all the ramifications of that position
I appreciate Feser's description that "Part of the intellectual and emotional appeal of doctrinaire liberalism is that it gives you a very simple, crisp, clear system, and a very easy-to-use criterion for determining one's position on issue a or b or c. But all political ideologies are like that, whether we're talking about Marxism or egalitarian Liberalism of the John Rawls sort. They tend to flatten out and simplify social reality." I'm wondering if we all have to go through a libertarian phase in life, in which we embrace an overly simple view and then think through the consequences of grounding natural rights in self-ownership, in property rights, before we can get to the other side: the side of social reality. Libertarianism seemed to offer a way out of conflict over social issues in American society twenty years ago, that have since been resolved in favor of expanding civil rights to include most any self-identification. I still think it can have a very salutary effect on a person's development insofar as the person is encouraged to take personal responsibility for his life. But ultimately, it is a philosophy that says every man is an island, 18 years and older, a parent-free and wife-free and child-free island.
The Church has ruled out the idea that the just wage is necessarily the same as the market wage. (And of course the market consists to a large degree of human choices and can bear a range of prices.) The Church's standard for the just wage is the family wage - by which the head of the family can support himself, his wife, and his children.
Its Ed Feser. Ill click on it. Even if it doesn't have to do with his stock and trade arguments for God stuff. You don't see him online much anymore
You do. His blog is alive and well and he's also on X. Now, in terms of interviews, he never did a lot of those anyways.
His road from libertarianism was not actually understanding it nor actually understanding catholic teaching. There’s a good reason why Austro-libertarian scholars are so predominantly catholic.
As an austro-libertarian leaning caþolic, what would you recommend to read on þe matter to show þat þe two are in fact perfectly reconcilable?
@@sorcyboi2848 I would advise you to start with the article "The Four Liberalisms" written by Kuehnelt-Leddihn. This will give you an overview of the historical context and additional references.
Do you have an actual argument contra Feser’s? Because all you made was an appeal to authority.
What exactly is it that Feser doesn't understand about libertarianism?
@@suntzu7727 he understands libertarianism better than libertarians, which is why he’s not one anymore. All you have to do is read the not very long article yourself to find out why if your
ego can handle the terrible possibility that you may actually be wrong. Happy to answer any actual clarifying questions you may have after doing so.
Like for Feser, great thinker. We all to some extent go through a phase where we think we have the final word on some issue or another without having thought through all the ramifications of that position
I appreciate Feser's description that
"Part of the intellectual and emotional appeal of doctrinaire liberalism is that it gives you a very simple, crisp, clear system, and a very easy-to-use criterion for determining one's position on issue a or b or c. But all political ideologies are like that, whether we're talking about Marxism or egalitarian Liberalism of the John Rawls sort. They tend to flatten out and simplify social reality."
I'm wondering if we all have to go through a libertarian phase in life, in which we embrace an overly simple view and then think through the consequences of grounding natural rights in self-ownership, in property rights, before we can get to the other side: the side of social reality.
Libertarianism seemed to offer a way out of conflict over social issues in American society twenty years ago, that have since been resolved in favor of expanding civil rights to include most any self-identification. I still think it can have a very salutary effect on a person's development insofar as the person is encouraged to take personal responsibility for his life.
But ultimately, it is a philosophy that says every man is an island, 18 years and older, a parent-free and wife-free and child-free island.
Isn't a just wage the one that the market will bear?
The Church has ruled out the idea that the just wage is necessarily the same as the market wage. (And of course the market consists to a large degree of human choices and can bear a range of prices.) The Church's standard for the just wage is the family wage - by which the head of the family can support himself, his wife, and his children.