Why the State Celebrates Its Failures

The Mises Institute ^ | May 09, 2005 | Grant M. Nülle

[annalex]

Dominican, yes. Franciscan, no.

[annalex]

Wasn't there something about a bull heart in that movie? Maybe Hormel should package those.

[kjvail]

Well if you checked my about page you'd see my midieval personality type is melancholic, so you are probably right LOL. I think the Dominicans would fit me to a T.

[Rockingham]

Yes, there was an ox heart in "The Name Of The Rose" -- and yes, Hormel does sell them -- as hot dogs.

[Rockingham]

When I was younger, my temperament as well tended toward melancholy; but over time, I have seen many of the fears and hopes of the world proved illusory. Except for some circumstances of our own lives, things will proceed with little regard or note of what we individually think, believe, and do. It seems far better to me to offer no sadness to the world but to reserve it solely for the people we know and care about.

[annalex]

You make my mouth water. However, hot dogs would be that assortment of cock heads and pig hooves that the autistic girl tries to steal from Il Stupido.

I just had a deeply satisfying medieval meal, untouched by technology. Burp. Wine. Burp.

[annalex]

Beasts of burden are lead to their rest
Quiet songbird is warming her nest
Night from dusk has distilled
Merlot my stomach filled
Shots of cognac stack up in my chest

Weeping willows’ subdued melancholy
Suits the clouds drifting forth e’er so slowly
Swaying lilies respond
To the breeze o’er the pond
This calls for Riesling with ravioli

Golden sheep congregate with their ram
Rainbow waters crash over the dam
At the sight of this idyll
Our thirst we must unbridle
Let us have Sangiovese with lamb

As a doe in spring clings to her buck
Peasant youth in haylofts try their luck
This bucolic tableau
Pleads to let the cab flow
In the company of citrus duck

[jackbob]

Monarchical warfare was hardly conducted by gentleman. It was for the most part warfare conducted by gangsters not much unlike the gangsters of the 20th century America. Only significant difference was that the monarchical gangsters had absolute power over the enslaved populations in their territories who they held down by use of terror tactics not much different from the Stalinist tactics practiced by the Checka, NKVD and KGB. Only they had one extra tool that the Stalinists did not have. They had the agents of the church serving as their block watchers, with the confessional as its first line of intelligence. They also, unlike the communists, claimed their authority over the subject populations as God given and used the teaching of the church officials to denounce popular freedom.

When the peasant revolts occurred during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries the mass murders of the harmless defeated, and often innocent, people were at no surpassed in the 20th century. These gangsters families slaughtered entire populations with the good graces of the church. Even after the reformation in Germany, Martin Luther even joined in with the Roman Catholic officials giving his blessings to the mass murders conducted by the monarchical gangster families.

Even when monarchists fought each other mass murder had its occurrences. For example, during the 30 years war numerous instances of mass murder occurred by monarchical lead armies. Slaughter, rape, and looting of the meager belongings of civilian populations was quite common place.

Of course there were many gangster territorial wars for gaining control over enslaved populations. In those wars, populations were for the most part not needlessly killed, as the enslaved people were part of the booty and thus not to be lost in wasteful killing.

Yes you are quite correct that the monarchical system was much better for holding the masses of people in a state of virtual slavery and keeping any form of progress or enlightened thought from reaching the people. It truly was a dark ages. But once people begin to think for themselves, and progress starts to shine through, then there will be a cost. Even the monarchists realized that the stronger countries became stronger by having increasingly stronger and educated populations. And those kinds of people, capable of thinking for themselves, will not accept monarchies.

[jackbob]

The problem with the radical libertarian vision is that it does not deal effectively with a wide range of issues that require collective and coercive action: roads, courts, national defense, and police and fire services... and pollution and other forms of trespass and nuisance in which the damages are widely distributed

I don't know where you get your information from. The radical libertarian vision has more than quite effectively dealt with all to the above. When the debates pretty much stopped within the libertarian movement back in 1984, the problem they had was in selecting which among several visions they had. The problems then were not that they couldn't deal with the issues, it was in selecting which vision was to be endorsed, or further developed.

The problem with the radical libertarian vision is that it does not deal effectively with... natural monopolies and enterprises that require the aid of eminent domain and other types of state power...

You are quite right here, except that natural monopolies have never occurred. Monopolies only occur where government actions or inactions bring them into existence. Your entire notion of enterprises in need of eminent domain is at best a strawman argument, as such enterprises either are not in need of such, or we all would be better off with out them.

You are quite right however that "most businessmen prefer to be regulated by the government," but not because of a fear of being subjected "to endless private litigation from all comers." They like being regulated because it keeps competition down and prices up. As far as endless litigation goes, it was argued quite often among libertarians that certain libertarian scenarios would lead to a litigation society. But such visions have been quite effectively challenged. The only problem with the libertarian vision is that the Libertarian Party and much of the movement stopped developing twenty years ago its infant vision to early. It was still in need of much refinement as it still is today and always will be.

Your notion that libertarian "measures" are "seldom... practical" I find quite comical. Such meaningless relativistic statements can be said about any political theory to include the one that is currently in practice now. Of course such a statement should be expected from one who considers the Federalist No.10 a "prime source" of "political philosophy."

[jackbob]

The US Constitution is a scant 216 years old give or take, the Holy Roman Empire stood for nearly 900 years (if you exclude Charlemange and the Autrian-Hungarian Empire which would make it more like 1200 years), about 600 of those years under the guidance of Hapsburgs.

This is absolutely not true. The Holy Roman Empire as such was a historic collection of many different empires with different governments and governmental systems. Its history includes being conquered, falling into chaos, and plagued by civil wars. Between many of the different empires and governments laying claim to its name, it often did not even exist in name. Furthermore many of those empires often existed with little authority beyond laying claim to the name. To make a long story short, the Holy Roman Empire did not any time in history exist with continuity as as long as the current U.S. government has existed with continuity.

[kjvail]

Where do you get your information?

You are so wrong about everything I don't even know where to start, try reading a history book

[kjvail]

“A FIRE STRONG ENOUGH TO CONSUME THE HOUSE:" THE WARS OF RELIGION AND THE RISE OF THE STATE”

[iconoclast]

It's hard to take the argument seriously when it starts with this:

As vast quantities of blood and treasure are expended abroad, Washington politicians win plaudits domestically for their warmongering, and government contracting at home and abroad burgeon, on what basis is this imperial project—financed by foreign lenders and American taxpayers—justified?...

Even harder to take your counter argument seriously, since you don't appear to have one.

We don't hear much from you jingoists these days.

I have shouted my objection to this multi-"explained" Iraq adventure from day one, stating that its only possible result would be a fruitless waste of blood and treasure.

That remains my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[iconoclast]

Lying leftist half truth ALERT!

YES! Damn that radical left-wing Mises Institute to hell! (/sarc)

This tiny fact has only been stated about a gazillion times by the likes of administration apologists Fred Barnes and Michael Barone.

Barnes, particularly is beyond sycophancy!

[iconoclast]

Good post.

This tragedy is much more a story of executive arrogance than intelligence failure.

[Condor51]

The facts are the facts. The deficit is not the biggest in history.

[kjvail]

Jacks last post well illustrates the problem - dueling conceptions of history. We live in a world of revolutionary governments, whose legitimacy depends on a distortion of history

There was a really good piece on this last year on Seattle Catholic, Lose the Past, Lose the Present by Dr. John C. Rao.

We must defend the truth of history at every opportunity, we are now 20 generations into this revolution, it would be so easy for the truth to be lost in the maze of revolutionary propoganda and mythology.

Everyone who cares to should study this history so as to be able to defend it well

Some starting points

Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History

a 500 page summary, very good overview but light on details of course

For more detailed treatment of Western history, two authors are critical:

Hilaire Belloc

The Path To Rome (1902)

Marie Antoinette (1909)

The French Revolution (1911)

The Party System (1911)

The Servile State (1912)

History of England (1915)

Europe And The Faith (1920)

Do We Agree?: A Debate Between G. K. Chesterton And Bernard Shaw, with Hilaire Belloc in the Chair (1928) (with G K Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw) aka Do We Agree?: A Debate

James II (1928)

Wolsey (1930)

Richlieu (1930)

Cranmer (1931)

Napoleon (1932)

Oliver Cromwell (1934)

Milton (1935)

Characters Of The Reformation (1936)

The Restoration Of Property (1936)

The Crisis Of Our Civilisation (1937)

Distributist Perspectives: Essays On Economics of Justice And Charity (2004) (with G K Chesterton and Harold Robbins)

Christopher Dawson

His bibliography I'll just link because it's huge. Dawson is the foremost Catholic historian of the last 500 years, his work can be the foundation of a lifetime of historical studies.

There are a number of lectures you can listen to from Intercollegiate Studies Institute on his work. Unfortunately their lecture search applet seems to be down at the moment, when I do a search I just get an error. You can browse their entire library of lectures here They have 171 lectures in audio, video and/or text formats, some really great stuff in there

Ahh ,I found some of critical import Christopher Dawson and the Rise and Fall of Christendom also The Thought of Christopher Dawson and Christopher Dawson's Historical Philosophy

(you'll need Realplayer to listen)

[iconoclast]

The deficit is not the biggest in history.

At best, isn't that a little like having a seriously enlarged prostate but celebrating because you don't have cancer?

[thoughtomator]

I don't think the Iraq war was a waste at all. We have had a lot of benefits from it, not the least of which is eliminating a sworn enemy who had a penchant for nursing grudges, no compunction about using terror, and total control of a semi-major state to back it up. Really, we've gone over this ground so many times, the arguments to justify the war are many and they are all out there explained down to the tiniest details. It's the contrary view that if asserted needs to prove its case, and a line like I quoted clearly assumes the contrary view without seeing any need to support it. I heard and hear that exact same view, in the same words, advanced by socialists and anti-Americans alike, and it is no more substantial now than when bribed Europeans were making it.

[Rockingham]

The radical libertarian vision is just that: a vision -- and nowhere a working reality, unlike, for example, the large and productive country spawned by our Constitution. The radical libertarian consensus that you refer to is more a sign of stagnation than vigor.

Radical libertarianism is an often insightful critique, but it is not a credible alternative way to run a society. And take a close look at Federalist No. 10, for there is much in it for a libertarian to like.