Political Traditionalism and Its Adversary, "Conservatism"

[Jacob]

If you want to learn about economics, just read my book.

Where can I find your book?

[Baldrick]

I probably cross the line into fascism when it comes to social issues, so I find myself in agreement with many of your items.  This is incorrect:

It recognizes that issues of social justice are not simply private. Since these injustices regard temporal goods and public suffering, the State has a very formal place in addressing and rectifying them.

"Social Justice" was a term invented by Pesch.  It is not "political traditionalism", whatever that is.  Also the State has very little to do with "addressing and rectifying" "injustices" with regard to temporal goods.  The devil is in the details.  Relief of the poor is reserved to the Church.  So says Rerum Novarum.  More on social justice, if we take the literal meaning of the term it means people who don't work starve.  The more correct term is "social mercy", however leftists like yourself don't like the idea that people are free to give alms or not.  edit: delete

Likewise, it regards traditionalists as socialists or Marxists since they do not employ "The government is inherently evil" as their major premise for every argument.

A poor caricature.  Traditionalists that take no account for the fallen nature of man IN GOVERNMENT are not socialists.  They are utopians who reject Original Sin.  Especially in government where the State has a monopoly on coercive power strong restraints must be in place to limit State power.  England, France, and Russia have taught us this. 

On economics, the Calculation Problem must be addressed, and in a hundred years the left has no answer.

My ideal of government would be a constitutional aristocracy with government broken down to individual States, with a very small central government, similar to the government God set up, before the Israelites rebelled and demanded a king.  A constitutional limited monarchy would probably be ok, e.g. Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monacco, however the counter example of Switzerland before the Sonderbund war, when it was very decentralized is relevant.  Interestingly it was the Catholic Cantons that fought to keep subsidiarity.  They lost.  Switzerland is still a decent place however and retains much in the way of subsidiarity.

Very well put. 

The calculation problem is is always side-stepped by utopian/statists of all flavors; and, despite being unable to demonstrate what is meant by a "just wage," the term is simply repeated ad infinitum as if it actually means something beyond a vague yearning (if not a kind of virtue signaling) "for a better world'; and only entrepreneurs and other economic actors (unless a laborer or a member of union hierarchy) suffer from Original Sin.

[Flora]

The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

"His due" might be interpreted variously.

Is it recompense for existing and residing within that State?
Is it compensation for inability to earn, in the same time period, what a more able-bodied or able-minded person could earn?  (i.e., Disability Payments)
Is it compensation for breaching the immigration laws of our country, and if so, what is "due" those who do honor those same laws?
Is it compensation based on political power or perceived political power of particular special interest groups?
Is it defensive compensation based on anticipation of political backlash or other consequences if the State does not anticipate the "due" of certain groups vs. other groups or all groups?
Is it another form of Unemployment Compensation?
Is it the closing of emotional and/or practical gaps due to greater earned economic status of the skilled vs. the less skilled?  (Is it an attempt to eradicate theoretical or actual inequalities?)

These are essential questions that need to be answered if one wants to move past hypothetical utopia into real-world application.

[Flora]

I probably cross the line into fascism when it comes to social issues, so I find myself in agreement with many of your items.  This is incorrect:

It recognizes that issues of social justice are not simply private. Since these injustices regard temporal goods and public suffering, the State has a very formal place in addressing and rectifying them.

"Social Justice" was a term invented by Pesch.  It is not "political traditionalism", whatever that is.  Also the State has very little to do with "addressing and rectifying" "injustices" with regard to temporal goods.  The devil is in the details.  Relief of the poor is reserved to the Church.  So says Rerum Novarum.  More on social justice, if we take the literal meaning of the term it means people who don't work starve.  The more correct term is "social mercy", however leftists like yourself don't like the idea that people are free to give alms or not.  edit: delete

Likewise, it regards traditionalists as socialists or Marxists since they do not employ "The government is inherently evil" as their major premise for every argument.

A poor caricature.  Traditionalists that take no account for the fallen nature of man IN GOVERNMENT are not socialists.  They are utopians who reject Original Sin.  Especially in government where the State has a monopoly on coercive power strong restraints must be in place to limit State power.  England, France, and Russia have taught us this. 

On economics, the Calculation Problem must be addressed, and in a hundred years the left has no answer.

My ideal of government would be a constitutional aristocracy with government broken down to individual States, with a very small central government, similar to the government God set up, before the Israelites rebelled and demanded a king.  A constitutional limited monarchy would probably be ok, e.g. Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Monacco, however the counter example of Switzerland before the Sonderbund war, when it was very decentralized is relevant.  Interestingly it was the Catholic Cantons that fought to keep subsidiarity.  They lost.  Switzerland is still a decent place however and retains much in the way of subsidiarity.

Very well put. 

The calculation problem is is always side-stepped by utopian/statists of all flavors; and, despite being unable to demonstrate what is meant by a "just wage," the term is simply repeated ad infinitum as if it actually means something beyond a vague yearning (if not a kind of virtue signaling) "for a better world'; and only entrepreneurs and other economic actors (unless a laborer or a member of union hierarchy) suffer from Original Sin.

This is another question that needs to be answered.

[Flora]

If you want to learn about economics, just read my book.

Where can I find your book?

I would also like to know.

[Miriam_M]

The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

"His due" might be interpreted variously.

Is it recompense for existing and residing within that State?
Is it compensation for inability to earn, in the same time period, what a more able-bodied or able-minded person could earn?  (i.e., Disability Payments)
Is it compensation for breaching the immigration laws of our country, and if so, what is "due" those who do honor those same laws?
Is it compensation based on political power or perceived political power of particular special interest groups?
Is it defensive compensation based on anticipation of political backlash or other consequences if the State does not anticipate the "due" of certain groups vs. other groups or all groups?
Is it another form of Unemployment Compensation?
Is it the closing of emotional and/or practical gaps due to greater earned economic status of the skilled vs. the less skilled?  (Is it an attempt to eradicate theoretical or actual inequalities?)

These are essential questions that need to be answered if one wants to move past hypothetical utopia into real-world application.

Thank you, Flora.  However, I asked those questions not for their "utopian" application but for the moral considerations.   Classic moral theology in the Church has been discarded in the post-V2 era by mainstream new-Church in favor of emotionalism (emotional justifications for an invented "social justice" which ignores the parameters suggested in specificity by certain popes and in accordance with the permanent deposit of faith).  Probably for that reason I prefer the term "social theology" to "social justice," because the latter has been severely corrupted by the Conciliar Sect and tends to lack moorings, yet with an often-inaccurate assumption of "justice" for a few despite injustice for many more, and -- more importantly -- despite a deeper injustice which does not emanate from the Church's social theology but is subjective, novel, politically-driven, and otherwise modernistic.

[Baldrick]

The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

"His due" might be interpreted variously.

Is it recompense for existing and residing within that State?
Is it compensation for inability to earn, in the same time period, what a more able-bodied or able-minded person could earn?  (i.e., Disability Payments)
Is it compensation for breaching the immigration laws of our country, and if so, what is "due" those who do honor those same laws?
Is it compensation based on political power or perceived political power of particular special interest groups?
Is it defensive compensation based on anticipation of political backlash or other consequences if the State does not anticipate the "due" of certain groups vs. other groups or all groups?
Is it another form of Unemployment Compensation?
Is it the closing of emotional and/or practical gaps due to greater earned economic status of the skilled vs. the less skilled?  (Is it an attempt to eradicate theoretical or actual inequalities?)

These are essential questions that need to be answered if one wants to move past hypothetical utopia into real-world application.

Thank you, Flora.  However, I asked those questions not for their "utopian" application but for the moral considerations.   Classic moral theology in the Church has been discarded in the post-V2 era by mainstream new-Church in favor of emotionalism (emotional justifications for an invented "social justice" which ignores the parameters suggested in specificity by certain popes and in accordance with the permanent deposit of faith).  Probably for that reason I prefer the term "social theology" to "social justice," because the latter has been severely corrupted by the Conciliar Sect and tends to lack moorings, yet with an often-inaccurate assumption of "justice" for a few despite injustice for many more, and -- more importantly -- despite a deeper injustice which does not emanate from the Church's social theology but is subjective, novel, politically-driven, and otherwise modernistic.

Very, very interesting Miriam_M.      

Where might I learn more about this? 

[Miriam_M]

The natural law demands that we not deprive our neighbor of his due.

"His due" might be interpreted variously.

Is it recompense for existing and residing within that State?
Is it compensation for inability to earn, in the same time period, what a more able-bodied or able-minded person could earn?  (i.e., Disability Payments)
Is it compensation for breaching the immigration laws of our country, and if so, what is "due" those who do honor those same laws?
Is it compensation based on political power or perceived political power of particular special interest groups?
Is it defensive compensation based on anticipation of political backlash or other consequences if the State does not anticipate the "due" of certain groups vs. other groups or all groups?
Is it another form of Unemployment Compensation?
Is it the closing of emotional and/or practical gaps due to greater earned economic status of the skilled vs. the less skilled?  (Is it an attempt to eradicate theoretical or actual inequalities?)

These are essential questions that need to be answered if one wants to move past hypothetical utopia into real-world application.

Thank you, Flora.  However, I asked those questions not for their "utopian" application but for the moral considerations.   Classic moral theology in the Church has been discarded in the post-V2 era by mainstream new-Church in favor of emotionalism (emotional justifications for an invented "social justice" which ignores the parameters suggested in specificity by certain popes and in accordance with the permanent deposit of faith).  Probably for that reason I prefer the term "social theology" to "social justice," because the latter has been severely corrupted by the Conciliar Sect and tends to lack moorings, yet with an often-inaccurate assumption of "justice" for a few despite injustice for many more, and -- more importantly -- despite a deeper injustice which does not emanate from the Church's social theology but is subjective, novel, politically-driven, and otherwise modernistic.

Very, very interesting Miriam_M.      

Where might I learn more about this?

I'll have to dig up what I wrote about this on a couple of forums.

[Quaremerepulisti]

The calculation problem is is always side-stepped by utopian/statists of all flavors; and, despite being unable to demonstrate what is meant by a "just wage," the term is simply repeated ad infinitum as if it actually means something beyond a vague yearning (if not a kind of virtue signaling) "for a better world'; and only entrepreneurs and other economic actors (unless a laborer or a member of union hierarchy) suffer from Original Sin.

The Church knows exactly what is meant by a just wage.

43. We now approach a subject of great importance, and one in respect of which, if extremes are to be avoided, right notions are absolutely necessary. Wages, as we are told, are regulated by free consent, and therefore the employer, when he pays what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond. The only way, it is said, in which injustice might occur would be if the master refused to pay the whole of the wages, or if the workman should not complete the work undertaken; in such cases the public authority should intervene, to see that each obtains his due, but not under any other circumstances.

44. To this kind of argument a fair-minded man will not easily or entirely assent; it is not complete, for there are important considerations which it leaves out of account altogether. To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self preservation. "In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread."(33) Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First of all, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.

45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

46. If a workman's wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

[Akavit]

So put it into real numbers.

Elsewhere I've stated that it is possible for a family of 4 to eke it out (no room for emergencies) on a single, full-time job paying $9 an hour with a take-home pay of $17,000 annually.  Other people claim that childcare expenses alone require as much as $18,000 a year per child.  Furthermore, does an employer have to ask how many children a man has and alter the wage based upon that information?  Is it okay to pay single people one wage and a father of 8 another?  Are all employers required to pay wages sufficient to support a family of 10 for every job position?

In the US, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to ask a potential employee about their children or familial status.

The big problem is that no two people can agree upon what constitutes a minimum standard of living.  In my opinion, this is about $30 a week of food per person plus a roof and basic medical (occasional checkups and the occasional antibiotic subscription plus conventional first aid).  Other people consider that baseline impossibly cheap.

[Miriam_M]

The big problem is that no two people can agree upon what constitutes a minimum standard of living.  In my opinion, this is about $30 a week of food per person plus a roof and basic medical (occasional checkups and the occasional antibiotic subscription plus conventional first aid).  Other people consider that baseline impossibly cheap.

Well, there's more than one problem, but taking just this one, may people do consider 30/week for food impossibly cheap, depending on the COL in their immediate region,yes.  Thirty dollars does not travel far in my neck of the woods, no.  If you grew your own fruits/vegetables and your body & medical requirements for that body tolerated your being a vegan, then $30 would be possible; otherwise, not.

[Akavit]

The big problem is that no two people can agree upon what constitutes a minimum standard of living.  In my opinion, this is about $30 a week of food per person plus a roof and basic medical (occasional checkups and the occasional antibiotic subscription plus conventional first aid).  Other people consider that baseline impossibly cheap.

Well, there's more than one problem, but taking just this one, may people do consider 30/week for food impossibly cheap, depending on the COL in their immediate region,yes.  Thirty dollars does not travel far in my neck of the woods, no.  If you grew your own fruits/vegetables and your body & medical requirements for that body tolerated your being a vegan, then $30 would be possible; otherwise, not.

It's easily possible.  It just requires more use of whole grains, beans eggs and potatoes than most people want to eat.  The Irish thrived on a diet consisting of mostly potatoes and Mexicans have done the same off beans and tortillas for generations.  Such diets are actually healthier than the average American diet.

The main difference between myself and other people is that I tend to set baselines at a functional level rather than a "tasty" level.

[Quaremerepulisti]

So put it into real numbers.

That's a job for economists.

Elsewhere I've stated that it is possible for a family of 4 to eke it out (no room for emergencies) on a single, full-time job paying $9 an hour with a take-home pay of $17,000 annually.

Perhaps in small towns.  In a major metropolitan area, no way.  But even so, this is only the case due to government help in the form of EITC, Medicaid, food stamps, child tax credits, public education, etc.

The big problem is that no two people can agree upon what constitutes a minimum standard of living.  In my opinion, this is about $30 a week of food per person plus a roof and basic medical (occasional checkups and the occasional antibiotic subscription plus conventional first aid).  Other people consider that baseline impossibly cheap.

So what are they supposed to wear and how are they supposed to get to work?

[Flora]

So put it into real numbers.

Elsewhere I've stated that it is possible for a family of 4 to eke it out (no room for emergencies) on a single, full-time job paying $9 an hour with a take-home pay of $17,000 annually.  Other people claim that childcare expenses alone require as much as $18,000 a year per child.  Furthermore, does an employer have to ask how many children a man has and alter the wage based upon that information?  Is it okay to pay single people one wage and a father of 8 another?  Are all employers required to pay wages sufficient to support a family of 10 for every job position?

In the US, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to ask a potential employee about their children or familial status.

The big problem is that no two people can agree upon what constitutes a minimum standard of living.  In my opinion, this is about $30 a week of food per person plus a roof and basic medical (occasional checkups and the occasional antibiotic subscription plus conventional first aid).  Other people consider that baseline impossibly cheap.

Exactly this. What are the details and exact numbers of what constitutes a "just wage"? If we were to go by what LeoXIII says, in my opinion, the current state of wages in the US is perfectly fine to live a frugal lifestyle. It is already "just" when you consider that government assistance takes care of many costs (eg., medical) for low earners.

This meal cost the poster $0.78, and he could have gotten the ingredients for cheaper too:
https://www.reddit.com/r/food/comments/4yxt9d/just_moved_out_of_home_and_followed_reddits_rice/

This is what I consider a frugal and healthy meal, which is more than affordable. However, others disagree.

Let's be honest, many people consider a "just wage" one where they can live a middle-class lifestyle. That as long as you are employed "somewhere" (doesn't matter what your job is -- could be pulling weeds or bagging groceries), you should be paid enough to life a middle-class lifestyle. Nothing wrong with that. But I think at that point you are talking about something other than "justice".

In any case, the questions posed by Akavit (and Miriam) need to be answered.

[Flora]

Elsewhere I've stated that it is possible for a family of 4 to eke it out (no room for emergencies) on a single, full-time job paying $9 an hour with a take-home pay of $17,000 annually.

Perhaps in small towns.  In a major metropolitan area, no way.  But even so, this is only the case due to government help in the form of EITC, Medicaid, food stamps, child tax credits, public education, etc.

So it looks like the system is already "just"? Unless you are suggesting that they should take away all of the assistance and supplement people's income with hard cash instead?