Read on Twitter
(1/13) As I’ve been reading more from the papal encyclicals, I’m starting to see some of the issues in the strict libertarian views. While I agree with Austrian economic analysis and a lot of what Hoppe says I think there are some flaws in terms of the philosophy of the Austrians
(2/13) There tends to be a conflation of the moral and scientific aspects of economics by the Austrians. For example, they will tend to argue against price controls in terms of economic efficiency. However, they will also be against redistrubuting property even when it is...
(3/13) ...beneficial to the common good.
This philosophy takes libertarianism far beyond prudence. While I think it is prudent to limit government control in the economy, it is a philosophical claim outside the realm to economics to claim it is unjust.
This philosophy takes libertarianism far beyond prudence. While I think it is prudent to limit government control in the economy, it is a philosophical claim outside the realm to economics to claim it is unjust.
(4/13) The problem with merging Austrian philosophical thought and Catholic philosophical thought then is that the Austrians have overstepped their bounds as economists and done exactly what they accuse the Popes of doing to their field.
(5/13) It is the clear teaching in numerous encyclicals that the civil authority can in fact redistribute goods for the sake of the common good. This is the universal destination of goods. It is a matter of justice that the poor are fed and while charity may be the most prudent..
(6/13)...way to do this, it is the clear teaching of the Church that the civil authorities have the right to do this if necessary.
Austrians also implicitly argue for economic regulations when it comes to the banks. By arguing for full reserve banks only, this is a regulation.
Austrians also implicitly argue for economic regulations when it comes to the banks. By arguing for full reserve banks only, this is a regulation.
(7/13) Although Austrians may wish to play off the regulating of the banks as simply limiting fraud, why can’t it be argued that other economic actions with negative externalities also be regulated?
(8/13) Austrians also implicitly assume the public square is neutral and letting the market decide will do enough. However, the state has already pushed us into degeneracy. If it steps out now, will it really return to normalcy? Why can’t we use the state to do good?
(9/13) It may be out of prudence that we say that right now the state won’t do what we want, but why can’t we say that there could be a state that could do it correctly.
(10/13)This could easily be argued to simply be a correction against the first aggression. You can’t steal $100 and then try to say that it can’t be taken back because of the NAP. Violations of theNAP have caused moral degeneracy, and we may need to violate the NAP to get it back
(11/13) Sorry this thread was so long. I do overall still think the Austrian account of economics and government is mostly right, but it oversteps its bounds into the philosophical realm and must, like any philosophy, accept corrections from Holy Mother Church.
(12/13) This correction of Austrian philosophy in line with Catholic teaching may have implications for Austrian thought on economics and government as well. As I think Tom Woods has properly pointed out, the economic analysis is outside Church authority while philosophy is not.
(13/13) If we refuse to accept correction of Austrian philosophy on the grounds of economics though, I don’t see how this is any different than left wing discent from Church teaching.
What I really like about Hoppeanism is its similarity to the Medieval order. However, I think Hoppeanism really has to corrected to be more fully in line with the Medieval order. If it’s stuck in strictly Lockean ethics, it never will be.
