38. All are rightly subject to God, by reason of their utter dependence on Him for all goodness they attain and thus there is never a right to disobey His precepts and the Law He has written into our Being
Great work as always, I eagerly await your continuing translation of Herr Haller!
We do not have a right to disobey God, truly, but does the state have a right to prevent us from disobeying God in all matters (or to punish us in the event we do)?
St. Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that the state should not be tasked with the moral perfection of the person, since in the process a greater evil might be unleashed. He was in favor of allowing things like prostitution to remain legal within a limited scope. Also how would the state enforce prohibitions against being covetous of another's wife or his property? Or having lustful thoughts? Being angry with your brother?
I think if we got back to a more private law political order, this would be more reasonable to add some more Christian precepts to the legal structure, but as the state stands now, I would not trust it with an increased scope.
That's a prudential judgement, not an absolute right. Everyone on earth, State or not, has a right to punish liars but it is not always prudent to do so. Same for prostitution or covetousness. If it can be identified it is well within the rights of any person to punish it. However, it may not be prudent to do it and so may be wiser to allow it to happen.
I can agree with that but it would depend on the type of punishment. Are we talking about social punishment? Discrimination? Ostracism? Excommunication? Boycott? Or are we talking about political punishment, or in other words punishment with the use of force? If the latter, what is the just punishment for prostitution or lying?
I think it would be wiser to allow self-harming activities or behaviors which harm no one else, aside from perhaps in a scandalous way, should be left alone by the state. But legal allowance by the state should not be confused with social acceptance. This is sort of the curse of the modern world where the Church as a moral authority has become so subdued.
For instance, I don't think that gays should be thrown from the tops of buildings, but they should not be allowed to scandalize everyone else by marching in parades or having pride events, and they should not have a political guarantee against social discrimination.
What country are you from? Is it the US? I'm wondering because you're one of the few english speaking people i've seen who actually challenges liberalism at its core.
Close, I'm from Canada which is like the US, but worse. I've only been able to challenge Liberalism as I do by reading Haller, who did it better than anybody else.
That the vast majority of Liberals would have no problem with most of these statements is in fact part of my point here (I was originally going to call it, "Do Liberals really exist"?). All of these statements, at least when applied to politics as opposed to daily life, are rejected by the formal Liberal doctrines, either at the outset, or in subsequent development.
Would you consider men like Mises, Bastiat, and Molinari liberals? I think they would have classified themselves as such. I think they would agree with many of your points above.
Great list. I only take minor issues with #18 and #37.
#18 A criminal erases his own rights to the extent he has deprived another theirs (eye for an eye), so there is no slavery in incarcerating a criminal or in forcing recompense to his victim(s). Taking prisoners of war could be seen as a temporary form of slavery, but then again, these men meant to kill you, or participated in an organization whose aim was precisely that, so they may be treated as criminals, especially if they are the aggressor/invader in the conflict. They meant to kill, so they deserve death, but a merciful captain or general may take prisoners, understanding that many men are compelled into battle not of their own personal wills but of the wills of their lords or kings to which they have given homage. I guess you could call this slavery, but it seems inappropriate, because in both cases, the men are not innocent.
#37 What do you mean by avowed theoretical fictions and imaginary systems? I fear this could be misconstrued as anti-intellectual. If you mean theories or systems that when put into practice lead to mass human tragedy, slavery and suffering because of their lack of continuity with reality (like popular sovereignty, the social contract, or Jacobinism, communism, socialism, democratism, Nazism, etc.), then I agree 100%. But if you mean any principle or social law derived by the study of man, whether logically, economically, sociologically, or from history, or a combination, then I must disagree.
38. All are rightly subject to God, by reason of their utter dependence on Him for all goodness they attain and thus there is never a right to disobey His precepts and the Law He has written into our Being
Great work as always, I eagerly await your continuing translation of Herr Haller!
We do not have a right to disobey God, truly, but does the state have a right to prevent us from disobeying God in all matters (or to punish us in the event we do)?
Why wouldn't it?
St. Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that the state should not be tasked with the moral perfection of the person, since in the process a greater evil might be unleashed. He was in favor of allowing things like prostitution to remain legal within a limited scope. Also how would the state enforce prohibitions against being covetous of another's wife or his property? Or having lustful thoughts? Being angry with your brother?
I think if we got back to a more private law political order, this would be more reasonable to add some more Christian precepts to the legal structure, but as the state stands now, I would not trust it with an increased scope.
That's a prudential judgement, not an absolute right. Everyone on earth, State or not, has a right to punish liars but it is not always prudent to do so. Same for prostitution or covetousness. If it can be identified it is well within the rights of any person to punish it. However, it may not be prudent to do it and so may be wiser to allow it to happen.
I can agree with that but it would depend on the type of punishment. Are we talking about social punishment? Discrimination? Ostracism? Excommunication? Boycott? Or are we talking about political punishment, or in other words punishment with the use of force? If the latter, what is the just punishment for prostitution or lying?
I think it would be wiser to allow self-harming activities or behaviors which harm no one else, aside from perhaps in a scandalous way, should be left alone by the state. But legal allowance by the state should not be confused with social acceptance. This is sort of the curse of the modern world where the Church as a moral authority has become so subdued.
For instance, I don't think that gays should be thrown from the tops of buildings, but they should not be allowed to scandalize everyone else by marching in parades or having pride events, and they should not have a political guarantee against social discrimination.
What country are you from? Is it the US? I'm wondering because you're one of the few english speaking people i've seen who actually challenges liberalism at its core.
Close, I'm from Canada which is like the US, but worse. I've only been able to challenge Liberalism as I do by reading Haller, who did it better than anybody else.
I think you have socialism and liberalism confused, the vast majority of liberals would have no problem with the vast majority of these statements.
That the vast majority of Liberals would have no problem with most of these statements is in fact part of my point here (I was originally going to call it, "Do Liberals really exist"?). All of these statements, at least when applied to politics as opposed to daily life, are rejected by the formal Liberal doctrines, either at the outset, or in subsequent development.
Would you consider men like Mises, Bastiat, and Molinari liberals? I think they would have classified themselves as such. I think they would agree with many of your points above.
Great list. I only take minor issues with #18 and #37.
#18 A criminal erases his own rights to the extent he has deprived another theirs (eye for an eye), so there is no slavery in incarcerating a criminal or in forcing recompense to his victim(s). Taking prisoners of war could be seen as a temporary form of slavery, but then again, these men meant to kill you, or participated in an organization whose aim was precisely that, so they may be treated as criminals, especially if they are the aggressor/invader in the conflict. They meant to kill, so they deserve death, but a merciful captain or general may take prisoners, understanding that many men are compelled into battle not of their own personal wills but of the wills of their lords or kings to which they have given homage. I guess you could call this slavery, but it seems inappropriate, because in both cases, the men are not innocent.
#37 What do you mean by avowed theoretical fictions and imaginary systems? I fear this could be misconstrued as anti-intellectual. If you mean theories or systems that when put into practice lead to mass human tragedy, slavery and suffering because of their lack of continuity with reality (like popular sovereignty, the social contract, or Jacobinism, communism, socialism, democratism, Nazism, etc.), then I agree 100%. But if you mean any principle or social law derived by the study of man, whether logically, economically, sociologically, or from history, or a combination, then I must disagree.
After having read your follow up article, I think I can safely delete my objection to #37 above.