Posted on 11/30/2013 3:59:08 PM PST by NYer
Apparently you have never read Milton Friedman
I am very well versed in libertarianism in general, and understand Friedman’s theory. I would agree with libertarianism that in a society of moral people of homogeneous culture the free market without government distortions is the best vehicle of prosperity. I do not think the theory applies in diverse cultures and with intrusive governments at all points of international exchange, especially in secular societies. In the latter environment the “pockets of exclusion” as His Holiness called them will invariably be created, and it becomes the job of the national government to reopen these pockets to healthy commerce and moral behavioral patterns.
A good example is a black ghetto in any major US city: a combination of welfare, anti-business local government, and crime as prevailing economic policy, plus abortion and now free contraception on demand, no-penalty divorce, loose sexual behavior and diversity celebration as cultural policy, — create an environment that the Catechism would call “a system of sin” where moral behavior is not likely to exist, and therefore economic lifts are not likely to emerge.
Friedman is no libertarian. You obviously do not understand the nature of free markets. You can cite the ‘black ghetto’ all you want but none of what you blather on about has anything to do with being either excluded from society or a lack of compassion from the free markets. Your drivel doesn’t change the fact (and it is a fact) that free markets produce people who have the most freedom of choice and the most republican form of government.
if you wish a theocracy then move to a country that is run by a church
I am free to vote where I am and do not intend to move.
If libertarian (or Friedman's) theory extends to poly-cultural crime- and government-infested pockets, and to international government-managed "trade" between the Third World and the First World then show me how. "You obviously don't understand", "move", and "drivel" are no substitutions for intelligent argument.
Don’t confuse conservatism with bashing all anything related to capitalism.. like you were.
You and Limbaugh’s comments on Pope Francis appear to confuse capitalism with unbridled consumerism, crony capitalism, insider trading, stock manipulation etc and therefore give capitalism properly understood, a bad name. This is not what Sowell, Buckley and others believe in.
Again Friedman never was a libertarian. You know so little and sound so pompous
He said that he was a libertarian philosophically, but a member of the U.S. Republican Party for the sake of "expediency" ("I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R.' And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.")
and you missed his point completely.
Look the pope was very clear. You can decide that ‘ghettos’ in America are the fault of the free market if you want. It is historically and economically a false hood to say so. Go ahead and defend this jesuit all you want. He is not the friend of freedom nor of free markets
Indeed, that is a problem that still vexes Bible scholars trying to do a decent modern language translation of the Bible from the original languages used for each Book of the Bible.
In fact, the Church has always emphasized communitarian values, charity, and social justice over individualism, and (in contrast to Calvinism, for instance) never equated acquisition of wealth with virtue. This is as much true of rightwing traditional Catholicism as it is of the renegade "liberation theology" Left. Distributism, social credit, and corporatism grew out of traditional Catholic social thought and criticism of laissez-faire.
I take it you are a Rush listener. How many times over the years have we heard Rush comment on one of his purported quotes by the msm - "I never said that!". Yet, he had no compunctions in accepting "their" interpretation of what the pope said. Rush has been on holiday for the past few days ... time to research and absorb the catholic responses to his rant. Let's see how he responds tomorrow.
Free market is an accessory to the freedom of man. What passes for “free market” today, especially in the Third World has nothing to do with either economic or spiritual freedom, and the Pope is a realist, — because he is, you know, Catholic, — unlike various libertarian sloganeers.
you make me laugh out loud.
sorry I am done with the silliness. enjoy your day
What do you find funny?
The people living in the foreground are unemployable as they are. Their personal work experience is crime, prostitution and picking city garbage. Their parents or grandparents worked sustenance agriculture. Their education is none or close to none. What theory, so you think, Limbaugh, Friedman and Co. have to give them gainful work, and how practical is their theory?
I don’t think he actually read the exhortation. When he supposedly quotes from it he’s reading someone else’s critique of it. Maybe he didn’t do his homework. Shocker.
He never condemns capitalism. He says that it will not work on its own. He disagreed that ‘trickle down’ economics would INEVITABLY benefit the poor. It’s not INEVITABLE. It still requires virtue of the individual. It requires someone to be as conscientious about helping those less fortunate than himself as he is about getting in line to buy the next gadget.
He never ‘makes clear’ that the poor are morally superior. He says they are crying out. How does the Pope condemn those with wealth, when it’s the people with wealth he’s appealing to in order to help the poor? He doesn’t tell those with wealth to put themselves in the poor house. You’re making a false dichotomy.
I agree with you, Jesus did not say that only the poor are going to heaven, but he did say the poor in spirit would. He wants us to be more selfless, that is not the same thing as saying he wants to feel guilty about our wealth. He wants us to do good things with it. This message has been consistent in the history of the Church.
He is focused on the log in the Roman eye. Although I wouldn’t say Roman, I would say human. He wants everyone in the world to be less selfish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.