History

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:55:57 GMT

Juan:
So you are a militant pro-catholic atheist ?

LOL! Actually, that's not far from the mark.

Re: My Take on History

Juan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:50:56 GMT

Oh I thought you were now some sort of theist. So you are a militant pro-catholic atheist ?

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:48:42 GMT

zefreak:

Lilburne, I am also interested in your conversion to theism, although I understand if you wish to keep your privacy or discuss it in a more private capacity.

What conversion to theism? My only conversion was from being a militant atheist to being an atheist who hates militant atheism. That's what I meant in the quote Juan referenced.

Re: My Take on History

Juan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:48:16 GMT

Lilburne

I'm sorry but I see your praise of the catholic church as totally unsubstantiated pandering to catholics for whatever personal reasons you have.

I don't need to 'convince' you that the catholic church was the official religion of the roman empire or that it persecuted pagans among other people. It's basic history, as opposed to catholic propaganda.

Re: My Take on History

zefreak — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:40:41 GMT

Lilburne, I am also interested in your conversion to theism, although I understand if you wish to keep your privacy or discuss it in a more private capacity.

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:26:23 GMT

Juan:
Lilburne:
One should not read religious bias in this historical interpretation. Suffice it to say that this author is not himself Catholic.
Oops. I did miss that, sorry.

Still, the catholic church was a transnational state - a theocracy.It was the official/state religion of the roman empire (other religions were banned and its members persecuted) and it was a partner of the european states that came into existence after roman rule stopped.

It never checked political power, it was one of the biggest, or the biggest political power in europe.

Sorry Juan, you'll have to offer more than that to convince me this isn't just your anti-Catholicism talking.

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:19:22 GMT

Juan:
Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations:
In the state in which things were, through the greater part of Europe, during the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, and for some time both before and after that period, the constitution of the church of Rome may be considered as the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil government, as well as against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind, which can flourish only where civil government is able to protect them.
I don't think the part about civil government is right and yet Smith's views on the catholic church can't be so easily dismissed...

Without anything more than bald assertion in that quote, we can't be sure that there's anything backing up that position more than the anti-Catholicism common in Britain at the time.

Re: My Take on History

Juan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:00:01 GMT

Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations:
In the state in which things were, through the greater part of Europe, during the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, and for some time both before and after that period, the constitution of the church of Rome may be considered as the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil government, as well as against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind, which can flourish only where civil government is able to protect them.

I don't think the part about civil government is right and yet Smith's views on the catholic church can't be so easily dismissed...

Re: My Take on History

Juan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:55:19 GMT

Solid_Choke:
If there is more competition in the political realm, then freedom is advanced to a higher degree (relative to less competition).

The existence of the Catholic Church caused greater competition in the political realm.

Thus, the Catholic Church caused freedom to advance to a higher degree (relative to no Catholic Church).

I'm tired as hell, I hope that made sense

It makes sense, but I think there are two related objections to that line of reasoning

1) Political competition doesn't necessarily bring more freedom. War, for instance, is the quintessential example of political competition - and war hardly advances individual freedom.

2) Even if the theory sounds somehow plausible (say, two mafia gangs being better than one mafia gang), that doesn't mean the theory fits the actual facts.

It's possible to be better off living under the rule of a 'benevolent' monopolistic mafia instead of being able to choose between two warring mafias. Not to mention that 'customers' of states or warlords don't really get to choose their masters.

In other words, political competition and economic competition are different beasts.

Re: My Take on History

Juan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:51:59 GMT

Lilburne:
One should not read religious bias in this historical interpretation. Suffice it to say that this author is not himself Catholic.

Oops. I did miss that, sorry.

Still, the catholic church was a transnational state - a theocracy.It was the official/state religion of the roman empire (other religions were banned and its members persecuted) and it was a partner of the european states that came into existence after roman rule stopped.

It never checked political power, it was one of the biggest, or the biggest political power in europe.

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:51:58 GMT

Laughing Man:
Weren't you asking what brought about the road to the high middle ages literature?

Right, and I'm saying the rediscovery of Plato and Aristotle could not have brought about that road, because it did not occur in the Dark Ages, as you claimed.

Laughing Man:
In the sense that it did not allow for the complete rule of the state, but the church itself would of been happy to allow its complete rule.

The question was not whether the church wanted complete rule. The question was whether it was a consistently opposing force against the throne; you said it wasn't.

Laughing Man:
Do you have any proof of this assertion?

Again, the industrial revolution antedated the widespread study of political economy as a distinct science. That's just a matter of public record.

Re: My Take on History

Andrew Cain — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:56:33 GMT

Lilburne:
Aristotle's work was rediscovered throughout the High Middle Ages, not before (except the Organon, which was never really lost, because Boethius translated them into Latin before the complete collapse of the Roman west). And Plato's work (except the Timaeus, which also was never lost) wasn't rediscovered until the Renaissance.

Weren't you asking what brought about the road to the high middle ages literature?

Lilburne:
I said "consistently", not "constantly." Yes, the Church sometimes aided certain princes. But on the whole, it was a check on state power. By the way, both Rothbard and Ralph Raico saw the Church as an hugely important check on state power in the High Middle Ages.

In the sense that it did not allow for the complete rule of the state, but the church itself would of been happy to allow its complete rule. Like I said, each would be happy to be the overlord of the other which makes it seem like they were in constant conflict, however, a premise of 'kings are rulers of the earth and church heads are leaders of the heavens' developed. Think of it like two monopolies who agreed not to get involved in the others business.

Lilburne:
It did happen largely without the influence of economic theoreticians.

Do you have any proof of this assertion?

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:10:16 GMT

Laughing Man:
Oh you are talking about people before the high Middle Ages. OK I though your comment was concerning it. Well isn't the Dark Ages before the High Middle Ages? If so then what we saw during the Middle Ages was the rediscovery of ancient literature such as Aristotle and Plato.

Aristotle's work was rediscovered throughout the High Middle Ages, not before (except the Organon, which was never really lost, because Boethius translated them into Latin before the complete collapse of the Roman west). And Plato's work (except the Timaeus, which also was never lost) wasn't rediscovered until the Renaissance.

Laughing Man:
But they essentially weren't. The throne was not the altar like in Eastern civilizations but the throne did work with the altar. Granted one party would of been happy to been the overlord of the other which makes it seem as they they were constantly fighting, but this is like the premise that government intervention is always anti-business. Quite the opposite, big business has always been in kahoots with the government in order to expand its power.

I said "consistently", not "constantly." Yes, the Church sometimes aided certain princes. But on the whole, it was a check on state power. By the way, both Rothbard and Ralph Raico saw the Church as an hugely important check on state power in the High Middle Ages.

From Rothbard's lecture "Ideology and Theories of History"...

"...the Catholic Church was a transnational check on state rule. I think it's the only case in history in which Church and State were not the same. In other words, in most civilizations, church and state were fused together, in a mighty alliance of throne and altar, as the conservatives like to put it. In other words you have the king, and the king is taxing people, etc, and then you have the church, and the church is telling people to obey the king, and of course getting part of the loop: getting a good chunk of the loot. You have state and church oppressing the public: taxing and controlling, etc, etc. I think this is the only period in history in which Church and State were separate: in other words, the Catholic Church, which was transnational, and therefore kept a severe limit on the power of each king. As a matter of fact, particularly, and by the way I recommend a marvelous book by Jean Beckler, a French economic historian, called "The Origins of Capitalism". Why did capitalism only arise in western Europe? Obviously there's been trade in every civilization, but real capitalism (...) really comes in only in western Europe. And what is it that made it so? And he essentially pinpoints the fact that power is decentralized, instead of being in a central empire, a central despotism. Each power is limited, you have independent principalities, you have villages which have autonomous power in many senses, and feudal landlords have autonomous power, and you have the transnational church to check individual states. You have very little state power either externally or internally as a result of these checks which allowed the market to flourish.(...) It's no coincidence, according to Beckler, that the real expansion of capitalism comes in the 11th century, the so-called Renaissance of the 11th century, which coincides with (Pope) Gregory VII's magnificent smashing of the power of the state in investiture, the power of the king."

Laughing Man:
So you propound that the industrial revolution was an inevitability? That it could of happened without economic theoreticians?

It did happen largely without the influence of economic theoreticians. I don't believe the English were limiting the crown in order to be in accordance with Scholastic economic theory. And the significant acceptance of the laissez-faire prescriptions of political economists didn't occur until after the Industrial Revolution was already underway in England.

Laughing Man:

Lilburne:
Throughout the 19th century, there was indeed a sense, even within the British Conservative Party, that ever-increasing people power was the wave of the future.

Do you mean to say the Tories?

The Tories changed their official name to the "Conservative Party" after the Reform Bill of 1832.

Re: My Take on History

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:16:10 GMT

Juan:
I imagine my mental processes are not too sophisticated...The thing is, your historical revisionism seems to be presenting the [Catholic] church as opposing political power and thus advancing freedom. So I wondered...

You must have missed this...

One should not read religious bias in this historical interpretation. Suffice it to say that this author is not himself Catholic.

Re: My Take on History

Andrew Cain — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:01:30 GMT

Lilburne:
I care more about the development of political liberty than the theoretical exposition of it.

Well you cannot separate practice and theory because it then seems like practices merely happen without cause out of the blue. Like mana being dropped from heaven.

Lilburne:
Again, the intrinsic sense of right and wrong is infinitely more important than sophisticated theories, which are often just rationalizations, either of what will benefit the theorizer, or of what they feel is right in their heart.

Well it sounds like you are taking an emotivist viewpoint of history. Going by what feels right and wrong.

Like: Black plague...yuck.

Instead of: The Black plague happened on X, Y is why the Black plague happened, Z is the result of the Black plague.

Lilburne:
For example, I don't think it's a coincidence that Hobbes travelled in royalist social circles (he tutored the Prince of Wales) and Locke was in liberal social circles (his patron was the liberal Lord Shaftesbury). Each man knew which side his bread was buttered on. So, Hobbes concocted incoherent theories that validated the venality of his royalist buddies, and Locke concocted incoherent theories that provided (superfluous) validation to the fundamental decency and goodwill of his patron, Shaftesbury.

Well what circles they traveled in is irrelevant. There ideas, their theories whether they are right or wrong, that is what is relevant.