Posts
I hate self-deluded experts who won’t make an effort….
I offer the following exchange, with some additional color
thrown in by yours truly:
I resisted commenting but here
goes.
You should have stuck to your first instinct.
I admire your writing and mostly agree
with your analysis, though I am an anarchist rather than libertarian.
Wow! A real anarchist and not a mamby-pamby libertarian! Thanks for sharing.
Why this is relevant, we are given not a clue. In any case, whenever someone who has never
commented here before (at least to my recollection) starts his comment with
something like “long time reader” or “I admire your writing” I am 99.99% sure
that a) it isn’t true and b) idiocy will follow.
I cannot make the reason for your
agreement with this thinly veiled Roman apology masquerading as
historical/political commentary.
A fair wonderment, but not for someone who says “I admire
your writing and mostly agree with your analysis,” given that I have written my
analysis on this exact topic more times than any other.
Even a superficial knowledge knows
of the Inquisition. If there was some kind of "common" culture it was
the result of violence and severe repression of any dissenting views. Suggested
reading: A History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages by Henry Charles Lea.
A typical (and uninformed) stereotype of the time and place.
If the Roman church is the giver of
this commonality, it did so just as the Communist Party did in the Soviet
Union, with violence and terror.
A typical (and uninformed) stereotype of the time and place.
One has to ignore real history (and
many papal bulls) to think this institution is ever been a friend of the
average man. That common culture was serf and noble with very little in
between.
The serf had much more freedom and law on his side than most
would expect, at least for those who go no deeper than the stereotype; the
noble even more freedom, and much more than any modern citizen. Further…he acted truly noble.
The wars of the 20th century had
nothing to do with religion, they were ideological wars primarily with the
German Succession question complicating matters. I fail to see Protestant
fingerprints on them.
Theologically, something is wrong
with a religion that at one time would kill you if you possessed that religion's
holy writings. Think about that!
I respect the partisans of the
Roman church to defend it however they wish, but I still cannot understand your
affinity with point of view.
For anyone who has actually read anything on the topic or my
posts on this topic, the above statements would not be so easily offered – at
least not without addressing the points previously made.
My reply to his comment:
bionic mosquito November 17, 2017 at 3:51 PM
You claim to be a long time reader,
yet I have never claimed that the Roman Church was perfect.
If you want to have a conversation,
proceed as follows:
1) Look to the top of this page.
2) Click on the "Bibliography" tab
3) Read every post under the author "Fritz Kern"
4) Read the post under Regine Pernoud
5) Read selected posts under RHC Davis (the titles of the posts will
indicate the relevant posts)
6) Read the first post under Jacques Barzun
After you have done this, please
reply in a manner that makes clear that you have some understanding of the law
and culture of the time.
a ware November 18, 2017 at 4:26 AM
I don't believe I said you claimed
any such thing. The issue is about the author's claim that the Reformation
caused the destruction of some "common culture". You have not
addressed any of my points about THIS particular subject.
So, you weren’t the one who wrote in the first comment
above: “I cannot make the reason for your agreement with this thinly veiled
Roman apology masquerading as historical/political commentary”? My confusion…I guess. I guess I don’t understand what “your
agreement” means in English.
The Roman church of the Middle Ages
operated exactly as Rothbard describes the State, entity with a monopoly on
legal violence over a territorial area.
This is so unbelievably false as to demonstrate your complete
and absolute ignorance on the topic.
How can a culture be
"organic" with a powerful entity enforcing a so called commonality?
How is it different from a king or State doing the same?
Did I use the word “organic”? No, I didn’t think so. In any case, this is so unbelievably false as
to demonstrate your complete and absolute ignorance on the topic.
Now I could take the same
condescending attitude by saying you show little understanding of the actual
history of the Middle Ages, but I just ask where I am wrong about this history.
Where are you wrong? On
virtually every important point.
As for Morello's contention about
academia (which I suppose you support), I wonder how Georgetown fits since
almost all of our rulers pass through it and it is a Jesuit institution.
Certainly the modern Catholics demonstrate all of the
positive characteristics that we found in Catholic clergy of the Middle Ages (I
am sure this will get me accused of ignoring the negative
characteristics). Good call there.
I have been very specific in my
post about THIS article but you reply with generalities and straw-men which is
certainly not conducive to any kind of conversation. I really expected better.
Oh, you’ll get “better” – and get it good and hard. But…I didn’t
expect better from you, because I expected that you would read none of what I
suggested before commenting again (either that, or you would just disappear –
either reaction is typical).
At least one of us had his expectations fully met.
bionic mosquito November 18, 2017 at 6:31 AM
you ask "but I just ask where
I am wrong about this history."
I have written a few hundred
thousand words on this topic, and instead of re-writing all of them in response
to your query, I ask you to read a small fraction of these.
We are wasting each other's time if
you won't even read my answer to your question.
a ware November 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM
Let me make this as simple as I
can: How can a libertarian be supportive of an institution that has used
repression and violence on dissenting views?
And he still won’t read a single thing I wrote. If he did, he wouldn’t so naively ask such a
question.
------------------------------------
The Cliffs Notes
Version
The man doesn’t want
to read a few posts! Instead, he wants
to lecture without considering that he might not know everything!
OK, I will make this as simple as I can. Libertarianism in theory is decentralization
in practice. There is not a
longer-lasting, more decentralized period of history in the west than the
Middle Ages.
Governance during the Middle Ages was very decentralized, in
almost every way imaginable. Was it pure
anarchy? Obviously not. But we will never get “pure” in a world
populated by humans. Was the
non-aggression principle the guiding light?
No. But only children expect that
the non-aggression principle will be the glue that ties man together in peace.
Let’s take a few examples, comparing the modern state to the
kings and Church of the Middle Ages and our modern times to the Middle Ages.
Now, to avoid a strawman in reply: I do not claim that the
following was purely upheld for 1000 years everywhere in the European Middle
Ages; I do claim that the following is a reasonable generalization, and does
capture the law of the time; I do concede that as the Middle Ages wore on, some
of these protections lost power in some cases – more so in some, less so in
others.
Let’s begin, shall we?
Who writes the laws?
Modern
state: Monopoly of the state
Middle
Age Kings: No
Middle
Age Church: No
Who enforces the laws?
Modern
state: Monopoly of the state
Middle
Age Kings: Monopoly, but subject to voluntary approval of nobles who give
this authority – authority that can also be taken away without permission of
the king.
Middle
Age Church: No, absent concert with a king – who has no authority not given
by a noble.
Who can veto the laws?
Modern
state: Monopoly of the state
Middle
Age Kings: No.
Middle
Age Church: No.
Who can interpret the
laws?
Modern
state: Monopoly of the state
Middle
Age Kings: No; the law is subject to interpretation by any noble who can
demonstrate old and good law.
Middle
Age Church: No; the law is subject to interpretation by any noble who can
demonstrate old and good law.
Who can veto the
state’s / king’s interpretation / decision?
Modern
state: the citizen has no such authority.
Middle
Age King: any noble could veto the king’s decision.
Middle
Age Church: Could issue an edict against the king’s decision; beneficial to
the dissenting noble – and serf!
Does the system
support panarchy?
Modern
state: No
Middle
Ages: Yes
Obligations of common
citizens / serfs?
Modern
state: 50% or more of income; compulsory obligations (schooling, military
service, etc.)
Middle
Ages: from a few days to several weeks per year, normally no military
service.
Slavery?
Modern
State: Yes, just like Rome before the Middle Ages and, until about 150
years ago, after the Middle Ages
Middle
Ages: No – serfs were by no means slaves; serfs had many freedoms and
powers unknown to slaves and unknown even to citizens of modern states.
Obligation flow?
Modern
state: one way only – up – the citizen has obligations to the state.
Middle
Ages: both up and down. Up from serf
to noble to king, and down from king to noble to serf.
Does this look like Rothbard’s state to you, man-who-refuses-to-read-and-prefers-the-shortcut-Cliffs-Notes-method-because-it-allows-him-to-get-by-amongst-his-ignorant-running-buddies?
Conclusion
Now, Mr. (un) A Ware, if you make another one of your
ignorant statements without reading the posts I have suggested (because the
topic is a little more complex and nuanced than your superficial version) – posts
that give direct background and sources to every item I have listed here and many,
many more that support my contention – and, further, without demonstrating that
you are addressing the information in the posts, I will not post your feedback. You can crawl back under the rock of your
ignorance.
And I can get some rest.
Feed not the trolls.
ReplyDeleteLet's just say that I felt like I needed a shower. After writing this post, I feel clean again.
DeleteFunctionally an "anarchist" is no different to anyone else in society because they are unable to live their professed ideology. A distinction without a difference.
ReplyDeleteOn the off chance Mr. UnaWare really wants to educate himself on the subject, he may also want to Google "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 46-minute video produced by the BBC (!) in 1994. Let him be forewarned: the BBC, that hotbed of papist apologists, concludes that 99 percent of the received wisdom on the Inquisition is fabricated. If he wishes to disabuse himself of some of the Black Legends surrounding that other Catholic Bugaboo of the "anarchist" left, he can Google "Crusade Myths" by Thomas Madden.
ReplyDeleteCareful there, Tony. He will realize this is just a trick. After all, BBC stands for Bionic's British Channel!
Delete:-)
As to reading "Crusade Myths," he doesn't read anything more than a few words. He wants one sentence replies to cleanse the brainwashing of decades.
But, I do thank you for both references. I will certainly learn something from each one.
First, if I have offended it is not my intention and deeply apologize. Perhaps you are catholic and my attack on the Roman church was taken personally. If I had known this I would have worded differently so as not to offend.
ReplyDeleteBut I did not personally attack you or call you names as you have me. While my training and study is military history, I admit I have no degrees in Middle Age history and am not expert in this field.
I did not claim to be a "long time reader" as I came by your posts thru links at Lewrockwell and found them to be very good.
As for being an anarchist, it is much easier to ridicule libertarians when they would pick rank Statists as their presidential candidates, as they have done repeatedly(I mean Bob Barr?! Bill Weld?!). I simply do not believe any political ruler is worthy of my devotion, but I do not seek trouble by breaking the law. I think the choice is bad and worse where "rulers" are concerned.
I agree that society was far less centralized in the Middle Ages but disagree that the Roman church was the reason. Many factors contributed to this just as in America before 1900.
To conclude all the horrors of history, especially the 20th century, to be the fault of Luther and Protestantism, I cannot agree with. You are misconstruing what election and total depravity mean to actual Protestants.
To act as if the Inquisition either did not happen or really wasn't that bad is an insult to the tens of thousands that perished in it. Not just Christians but Jews also. The torture chambers still exist for viewing should any care.(This is for Tony)
I have read every word you advise but still do not agree with all of your conclusions. I still contend the institution engages in coercion, repression, and violence.
I only wanted to understand what seemed to me a contradiction of support of an institution of arbitrary repression and political philosophy of libertarianism. I did not wish to offend in any way. I have been wrong many times and am certainly inclined to believe the misunderstanding is on my part.
I did not do a point by point commentary simply because it would take many words and references, and choose only to defend against these personal attacks(but will if need be). Again I apologize for any thing you have taken personally.
“First, if I have offended it is not my intention and deeply apologize. Perhaps you are catholic and my attack on the Roman church was taken personally.”
DeleteYou didn’t offend me; you only served to embarrass yourself. Instead of worrying about my religious affiliation, you could have actually done the work of reading – and then dealt with what I wrote instead of spouting off repeatedly.
“But I did not personally attack you or call you names as you have me.”
You earned every rebuke.
“While my training and study is military history, I admit I have no degrees in Middle Age history and am not expert in this field.”
This pisses me off more than anything you have written. You have no understanding of the era; I offer you – for free – some guidance and education; you ignore this and instead continue to accuse me of being stupid.
“I agree that society was far less centralized in the Middle Ages but disagree that the Roman church was the reason.”
“THE” reason? Why do you take things to the extreme?
“To conclude all the horrors of history, especially the 20th century, to be the fault of Luther and Protestantism, I cannot agree with.”
Who wrote such a thing? But the roots are there; of this I have no doubt. Of course, man had many choices between 1517 and 1914; each choice played a role. I know I will hate myself in the morning for suggesting the following, but read this:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/05/and-dying-cheer.html
You will note I purposely did not mention the Reformation; I was not comfortable doing so at the time. But the rest flows pretty well.
“You are misconstruing what election and total depravity mean to actual Protestants.”
I don’t care what it means to Protestants; I care about what it meant to society at the time and how this has progressed through society since. For God’s sakes – what came after Luther even Luther didn’t agree with.
“To act as if the Inquisition either did not happen or really wasn't that bad is an insult to the tens of thousands that perished in it.”
You didn’t watch the video, did you? In any case…compared to what? Compared to the tens of thousands of witch burnings in Protestant lands (a virtually unknown practice during the Middle Ages)?
“I have read every word you advise but still do not agree with all of your conclusions.”
I don’t care if you agree or not; your failure was in not doing the work in the first place – or, if you did read these when I first suggested, your failure was in not addressing the points raised in rebuttal to your claims and statements. This would have saved us both a lot of trouble.
“I still contend the institution engages in coercion, repression, and violence.”
Understand something clearly: there will always be some form of governance in society; there will be aspects of governance that are not pure libertarian; the best we can hope for in this world of imperfect humans is ever-increasing decentralization.
So don’t erect a strawman. Find for me a better example in history of decentralization and a better realized law from a libertarian standpoint than the law during Middle Ages. Please find it – I would love a new area of history to explore.
“I did not do a point by point commentary simply because it would take many words and references, and choose only to defend against these personal attacks (but will if need be).”
It would have taken less effort on your part than what has transpired. In any case, I don’t care if you do or don’t write a point by point commentary – except in one condition:
You owe me one thing: read the list that I created off of the top of my head, comparing and contrasting the Middle Age governance to the modern state. Repeat again that this is exactly the same as Rothbard’s definition of the state (at which point I will be certain that you have the sanity of a turnip) or apologize for writing this in the first place.
Or, write a point by point rebuttal explaining why I am wrong in my understanding of this history. For this, provide sources – as I have done for every one of my statements.
“To act as if the Inquisition either did not happen or really wasn't that bad is an insult to the tens of thousands that perished in it.”
Delete"You didn’t watch the video, did you? In any case…compared to what? Compared to the tens of thousands of witch burnings in Protestant lands (a virtually unknown practice during the Middle Ages)?"
No, Mr. UnaWare did not watch the video. Not that I expected him to. It makes quick work of this "tens of thousands" malarkey.
"[...] Find for me a better example in history of decentralization and a better realized law from a libertarian standpoint than the law during Middle Ages. Please find it – I would love a new area of history to explore."
ReplyDeleteNot really related to this debate, but I remember coming across something on mises.org (I think) a long time ago that mentioned the early westward expansion on the North American continent as having these qualities. I would think it would be on a more micro scale than the European middle ages, but may be worth looking into.
You took far more time than I would of for someone who exerts so little effort in gaining knowledge for himself.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of Rothbard's comment on people's opinion of that nature regarding economics:
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
BM:
ReplyDelete"I hate self-deluded experts who won’t make an effort"
Don't be so hard on yourself.
"It still moves". Galileo Galilei, 1633, said after recanting, under threat of torture and death by the Roman Catholic Church, the heretical idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Yet another self-deluded expert...
DeleteRight of the bat, your ability to read and reason is deemed lacking. Please tell me: is 1633 during the Middle Ages, the period of which I write?
Second, even a five minute search will demonstrate that the story is not as simple - or as dire - as the self-deluded experts like you believe.
But don't worry, you are safe - no nom de plume for me to remember you by. Not as dumb as your lack of calendar and logic skills suggest.
For starters, Bionic, the courageous, nom de plume-wielding Anonymous might start with exploring the provenance of his chestnut of a quote. To wit:
Delete"'And yet it moves ...' Galileo is said to have muttered to himself after recanting his heretical notion that the Earth orbited the Sun....
"This myth of 'Eppur si muove' is so common that it traps unsuspecting authors even [especially!] at the most prestigious news sources. Early biographies of Galileo never mentioned the event. The first mention of the myth in the English language was by Giuseppe Baretti in 1757, more than a century after Galileo's death. Records of Galileo's trial do not reference any similar statements being said by Galileo."
http://www.scientus.org/Galileo-Myths.html
"To know who rules over you, simply find out whom you are not allowed to criticize." The quote is attributed to Voltaire. Whoever said it was surely referring to the Church of Rome.
Let's face it. Holocaust "denial" is a walk in the park. But calling the Catholic Church to account for her innumerable crimes against humanity--even in this post-Christian age--brings real-life consequences.
Hello:
ReplyDeleteI've seen you post at LewRockwell.com so I assume you value the work of Murray Rothbard as the father of present-day American Libertarianism. You do realize that if Murray were to go back in time to the Middle Ages, stand in the town square, and read from his book "The Anatomy of the State", the Roman Catholic Church would burn him at the stake as a heretic. For example, the following from page 23:
"Many and varied have been the arguments by
which the State and its intellectuals have induced
their subjects to support their rule. Basically, the
strands of argument may be summed up as follows:
(a) the State rulers are great and wise men
(they “rule by divine right,” they are the “aristocracy” of men, they are the “scientific experts”), much greater and wiser than the good but rather simple subjects, and (b) rule by the extent government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and
far better, than the indescribable evils that would
ensue upon its downfall. The union of Church
and State was one of the oldest and most successful
of these ideological devices."
How many loonies will post such nonsensical comments in regards to what I write on this topic? Let's add one more "anonymous," who wants to ensure that we can't keep track of his nonsense as he will not use a nom de plum.
DeleteListen carefully: find one place where I have written favorably about the union of church and state - this is completely contrary to the decentralization of government that I write about and that existed throughout much of the Germanic Middle Ages.
As to the Divine Right of Kings, I would ask you to to expand on when and how that concept came into being but I know you wouldn't have a clue. Let's just say in the time and space that is relevant to my writing, there was no such thing. Any king who claimed this would be run out of town.
In other words, they would have agreed with Rothbard. So...you are the one who would turn crispy (except, guess what - through much of the Middle Age period, they didn't burn witches either - they felt sorry for them; lucky you).
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, stiff-armed the Thessalonian-massacring Emperor Theodosius when he sought entry to the cathedral. "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?!" cried out King Henry II. His henchmen proceeded to slay the Archbishop of Canterbury. Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV overthrew Pope Gregory VII, who died in exile. Napoleon kidnapped Pope Pius VII. The Soviets may well have had a hand in the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.
ReplyDeleteFreethinkers bristling at the "rule of divine right" had better start looking at the union of aggressive secularism and state. When it comes to atrocities, after all, the City of God can't hold a candle to the City of Man. For more on this, Google "French Revolutionaries" or "Bolsheviks."
"When it comes to atrocities, after all, the City of God can't hold a candle to the City of Man."
DeleteVery good. Kind of like seeing the speck in another's eye while ignoring the log in their own.
"You do realize that if Murray were to go back in time to the Middle Ages, stand in the town square, and read from his book 'The Anatomy of the State,'the Roman Catholic Church would burn him at the stake as a heretic."
ReplyDeleteReally? You have to wonder, then, about this passage from *City of God* by St. Augustine of Hippo:
"Without justice, what are kingdoms but great robber bands? What are robber bands but small kingdoms? The band is itself made up of men, is ruled by the command of a leader, and is held together by a social pact. Plunder is divided in accordance with an agreed upon law. If this evil increases by the inclusion of dissolute men to the extent that it takes over territory, establishes headquarters, occupies cities, and subdues peoples, it publicly assumes the title of kingdom!
"A fitting and true response was once given to Alexander the Great by an apprehended pirate. When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he replied with noble insolence, 'What do you think you are doing by infesting the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate; because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor.'”
St. Augustine openly flirted with anarchy. Yet, not only was he not burned at the stake, he breathes rarefied air as one of the Four Great Doctors of the Western Church. Isn't that something?
Tony, thank you for your contributions to this dialogue.
DeleteNo, I thank you, Bionic. For years I heard the most lurid accusations leveled at the Catholic Church. The cognoscenti parroted them as every-schoolboy-knows history.
DeleteI never thought I'd live to see the day when a well-informed blogger shed light and nuance on these manufactured controversies. Full disclosure: I am both a hardcore libertarian and a card-carrying member of the Whore of Babylon.
Tony, there are still two or three posts that will come from this book. So we can continue the conversation.
DeletePssst! Bionic! Did you read the lead article on today's LewRockwell.com? This Ira Katz guy sounds like he learned history from you!
DeleteI think learning goes both ways. Impossible to sift out the threads that led me to this place.
DeleteThis post may say Anonymous, but it is IpseDixit (have forgotten how to login properly)
ReplyDelete"You earned every rebuke"
How refreshing. Sometimes the best diplomacy or charity involves being bluntly honest.
Yet, almost one week later...silence.
DeleteHe apologized for many things irrelevant to me, and he ignores the one apology that is valuable to me.
Many people find my directness off-putting. Unfortunately, it is the only way I know.