The guilds forbade sneezing in front of your shop, since it might make customers look at your shop instead of others. Silly me for not cheering this.

I think Hans-Hermann Hoppe touched on this subject in his *A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism*, pretty much making the same case that these guilds stifled wealth creation and made society poorer.  

Do you mean to say endorsing coercion is responsible if you illustrate
that the system in question did not totally encumber innovation, only to
the extent that it permitted some progress over the centuries? This
sounds a little like the justifications made for NASA or defense
spending, as if humanity might never have managed the technological
wonders of velcro, Tang, or ARPANET without involving trillion-dollar
bureaucracies. I suppose because Ludditism and unionization followed on
the heels of general prosperity, and because neither managed to
completely hobble entrepreneurial progress, we can applaud those movements, too.

I can’t remember where I’ve cited this point (so I could look up the ref for you) but you might find something in this: http://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/qje_de-roov_monop_51.pdf

With our finances the way they are, I tend to look into books before I buy them. One of the best (though by no means the only) ways to do this is by reading the reader reviews, especially when I’m looking at nonfiction. Even before I read something, I know what people do and don’t like about it. 

The problem with your link is that there are NO reviews. It was published nearly 15 months ago, and not a single person has even gone to the trouble of rating it. There is no conceivable way that I would choose to buy this book, since by my criteria it’s a dud. After all, this is MY money I’m spending, and I do my research because I want the most value for my money…unlike some institutions I could name.

I HAVE, however, purchased Tom Woods’ Rollback (Kindle edition, yay…). Yes, I did read customer reviews first, among other things. The negative reviews that I read mainly had to do with ad hominem attacks on his character, so I discounted those…and they were greatly outnumbered by positive reviews anyway. Plus, I’d seen his speeches and read things he’s written online, that I could see (for free, no less) were well-written and clearly explained. I was reasonably sure that I would find his book insightful and thought-provoking, and I have…as I do nearly everything I read/see by him. You, sir, are promoting a book that YOU couldn’t even be bothered to rate/review, that costs nearly $40 and isn’t available on kindle. Have you even read it, or did you just google pro-guild books published by Cambridge University Press, in order to try to refute Woods’ support of this new book (which is barely over 6 months old, and already available on Kindle for under $20)? Even though that book has no reviews either, it’s a lot easier to commit $17 to something that is promoted by someone I’ve read and enjoyed, than $37 for something that someone named ‘random catholic’ touted as a ‘responsible point of view’.

You wouldn’t happen to be from the government, would you?

That’s why I stipulated, ‘by no means the only’ way to look into books. If somebody I know or respect recommends a book, I would be more likely to check it out than I would if somebody I’ve never heard of recommends it. In the absence of a) recommendations by people I trust or respect, b) an author’s name that I recognize and am interested in, and c) money to throw at books I may or may not be interested in, reader reviews are very important in my decision making process. There are enough books out there that meet one or more of my criteria that I don’t have to settle for one that doesn’t.

Though I likely won’t buy this book, either. I do like reader reviews, and my money is tight, and my time is precious to me. Plus, there IS a lot of material online that is free to read and research, and I make the most of that, and try to reserve my cash for people I actually want to support with my business.

What bugged me about randomcatholic was his attitude more than anything else. I’m much more likely to give value to someone who uses their own name when criticizing someone’s lack of factual basis, especially when it’s given in such a casual, offhanded way, with a single link (with no facts given) thrown out for someone to look at…a link to a book which has no reader reviews or anything else to recommend it other than some disgruntled, nameless person who obviously has a problem with Woods. I enjoy reading opposing points of view as well (always love playing devil’s advocate), but not based on such flimsy recommendations as that. 

Though I would dearly love it if Mr. Woods’ kindle books had lending enabled (yes, that’s a hint and a plea, there are so many people who could actually learn something that I would like to share with).

Amazing hypocrisy from Kimberly Thompson. Dr. Woods gives us a book that has never been reviewed, and costs the exact same thing as the book I linked, and is even published by the same company, and yet she castigates me for linking it. Also, amazing hypocrisy from Patrick Hatten, who is scandalized  when I point out that Tom Woods presents his side as factual, without providing counterbalance or at least recognizing that there are reasonable opposing points of view. This is just a silly rehash from an earlier thread when I (correctly) pointed out the Mr. Woods was reacting to a papal encyclical in a scandalous fashion.

I just like civility and decency and balance. The good news, is so too do most civilized Americans. Its why Tom Woods is taken seriously only by the fever swamp. Its also why his candidate who he pulls for has no chance ever of getting elected.

Oh, I read this blog and the comments. You can all tell yourselves that the reason Ron Paul will not win is because other people are too “stupid” to understand Austrian economics. You can tell yourselves that Ron Paul will not win because he is an inferior candidate, but that your ideas are WONDERFUL. After all, libertarian ideas are SELF EVIDENTLY TRUE… right? Right?

Actually no. I reject them. And so too do most voters.

As for Dr. Woods comment about the scholastics, I question now whether Dr. Woods is a person of good will. I never said that I believed that guilds were wonderful. In fact, I am still on the fence. What I am disgusted by is this man’s tone. It may well be true that the guilds did more harm than good. But I have read thoughtful, civilized, and CATHOLIC defenses of them in the past. Furthermore, the Catholic Church in the years leading up until the 1950s was one of the greatest voices for the rights of labor in the world. So, Dr. Woods is running against the grain. Fine. But at the very least he should be fair to those with whom he disagrees…. like the Pope for instance.

“I again repeat that my work on economics has been praised by the major
orthodox Catholic publications, so my anonymous critic’s gripe is with
more than just me. As for vicious tone, compare his nastiness to any of
my blog posts!”

My tone did not begin this way, and I deny my tone is nasty, even now. I take umbrage with what you are doing, and I am telling you so. That is not nasty. Furthermore, I would take the same tone with a pro-choice Catholic or pro-contraception Catholic as I am with you, because whether you wish to admit it or not, you are undermining key points of Catholic teaching and doing damage in the process. I will prove it in this post. And it won’t take long.

“As for the “rights” of labor, if my critic knew
more than platitudes, he would know I agree with Leo XIII on this —
labor may organize but not use violence or the threat of violence.”

This is a pure dodge, and sophism too boot. You define violence as any use of the police power of the state. Therefore, by your definition, laws that forbid employers from firing striking workers and replacing them with scabs would be using “violence.” How can you claim loyalty to the spirit and letter of papal encyclicals on the rights of labor, when in fact, in your work, you defend the notion that ANY wage a worker gets is, by definition just? I question your sincerity in this paragraph.

“As
for not being taken seriously blahh blah blah, my work has been
published by top houses, translated into a dozen languages, been awarded
prizes, I get invites from universities here and abroad, etc. He has to
be kidding. It is the modern defenders of the guilds who are
professionally invisible.”

The world has in fact praised you, and praises many voices of dissent. That is nothing new.

“That piece he criticizes as scandalous
was a great piece, reprinted by the Catholic world many times over. He
thinks the Pope, whom I wrote a whole book defending, may never be
criticized. St. Thomas begs to differ.”

No, you are wrong. As a Catholic scholar you can question the Magesterium, and an encyclical, but HOW YOU DO IT MATTERS. Apparently you did not know this before. Now you do.

For instance, a TRUE Catholic would understand that the primary concern of the Popes has been (and will always be) the ability of a man’s labor to provide for Catholic family life. This is where the concept of the family wage comes from. This is NO PLATITUDE. It is essential for the health of society itself.

Now, a FAITHFULLY CATHOLIC libertarian who truly believed what the Church taught would argue that free-markets were the best means of allowing workers to earn a family wage. Have you argued this? No. You have in fact argued the opposite. Most libertarians would say something like this: “No worker has a right to expect to earn a family wage for his labor. He only deserves what the market will give him, even if that means his children grow up in poverty.”

This is a KEY distinction. It would be okay for instance if you argued that “yes, a worker has a right to a just wage, and has a right to earn enough to provide for a Catholic family life with his labor, and the best way to achieve this is by the free market. I agree with the Popes on their consistent teaching… however the Popes are speaking outside their authority when they give specific means of achieving this aim.” It is MANIFESTLY NOT OKAY to argue that workers do not have the right to a family wage, or the ability to raise a family in a Catholic manner. That is a HUGE distinction. It is NO PLATITUDE.

I note you do not reply to anything substantive in my post at all. That is typical as I understand it. Being snarky however does not result in good arguments, and I think the majority of voters (especially informed and faithful Catholic ones who believe what the Church teaches) know it.

You quote Leo XIII (NOT in an encyclical by the way) at me, yet that statement was made in the face of clear abuses during the Pullman strike. Destruction of property, rioting, etc. etc. are ALWAYS wrong, and always to be condemned, and it is not at all surprising a Pope would condemn such abuses. Such actions are violations of the commandments. No matter what the legitimate concerns of the workers were, violence is never justified. Of course, defending labor and the right to organize and labor laws that prevent the breaking of unions is NOT THE SAME THING as defending the Pullman strike. You are a smart man. You know this. Your demonizing of organized labor is just plain wrong.

Oh, the snark!  “Moreover, I find it scandalous that a Catholic would refer to fellow
human beings as “scabs”! How dehumanizing. Are these people not part of
“labor”? Does the advancement of “labor” mean crushing these despised
folk underfoot?”

Absolutely abominable. When workers bind together and strike against abuses or low wages, if employers can simply fire them and hire new employees (traditionally a practice called hiring scabs… nothing scandalous about using that word at all… ITS NOT LIKE I AM ATTACKING ENCYCLICALS AND POPES IN PUBLIC) then the power of the strike as a means of obtaining fair treatment is totally lost. Of course, you would argue that there is no such thing as an employer treating an employee unfairly so long as the employee agreed to the treatment (no matter if he had not other options). That such a sin would be “impossible.” I guess my old examination of conscience dating back to the 1920s that lists “denying the worker his just wage” as extremely serious is totally unnecessary.

What has happened to middle class wages in our country since union membership has declined so drastically? They have fallen. How many workers can afford to have traditional families these days, where one spouse stays home to raise the children? HOW MANY!? Look at the most recent census data. The HARD DATA show that the middle class is shrinking, that the rich are getting ever more richer, and that it is getting harder and harder to support a family on a working man’s wage. Enlighten me about how the Church could ever reconcile itself with a vision that says that a man who works full time should not be able to expect to support his family on that wage. Doesn’t a Catholic conscience cringe at the notion that the American family is literally falling apart? Shouldn’t our PRIMARY concern be working to preserving the traditional family, and making sure our economic system enables traditional family life? Are these concerns all passe?

My comment about the lunatic fringe and fever swamp I won’t take back. I used to be a Republican… and I still adamantly refuse to vote for pro-choice candidates. However, this new extreme libertarianism that has infected the party is both ill considered and dangerous. We need to be focused on defending the culture of life against the culture of death, ending abortion, and defending the family, and finding every way possible to strengthen the American family against the onslaught it faces. Instead, you are out to demonize good and hardworking blue collar Americans, many of whom believe and try to live the Church’s teachings against long odds. You bristle at the notion that they believe that they have a right to a living wage and a right to be able to support their families on those wages.  You are desperate to pretend that all of this is somehow compatible with Christianity (let alone Catholicism!). But it isn’t.

This will be my last post, because dialoging with a radical is a waste of time. I believe you are doing damage to the Church by trying to convince so many that the Popes are wrong on economic issues, and that we should simply ignore the Church when she speaks on matters of justice. You of course disagree. So be it.  Some of libertarianism may be correct. There are good things libertarians say… on education I think especially. Yet, the extremism of the movement, the vilification of organized labor, the advocating for the end of collective bargaining, the convincing of others that the poor are poor because they essentially chose to be and deserve to be, the social darwinism of the whole thing is entirely unsupportable and inconsistent with the Christian conscience.

Good bye. I am done here, and will not return. Feel free to have the last word.

Well, Guest, as a traditional, pro-life Catholic, I’ve also been an Austrian and paleo-libertarian for all of my adult life. I’ve never tried to convince others that poor people are poor because they chose to be. I don’t believe it, and indeed the freedom philosophy I’ve imbibed over the years teaches, in theory and historical example after historical example, exactly the opposite: that wherever there’s systemic poverty, chances are the dead hand of the state is in there, holding people back. 

Moreover, I do object to the notion that it’s “hard” to raise a family on a single wage these days in the U.S. or anywhere in the West (I live in Australia).  As bad as things are relative to, say ten years back, – and let’s set aside the extremely relevant question as to whether they are bad because of government or in spite of it – they are incomparably better, materially speaking, for most people today in the West – at least, those who have a job – than most people have had to endure over the whole of human history. Let’s put it this way. If someone working as, say, a lowly hospital wardsman were to be transported back to a medieval manor, or a town in ancient Rome, or to Sumer in the 3rd millenium BC, (and these, note, were advanced civilizations, not the norm for everyone living in the world at the time) and invited to articulate exactly why he was unhappy with his lot and how difficult it was, materially speaking, to be a breadwinner for his family, his audience would be dropping their jaws in amazement – not at his hard luck, but at the incredible array of choices he had, and the fact that he was complaining!  Bottom line: most families in history have been raised – successfully – in living standards we would from our privileged vantage point (thanks to the free market) classify as dire poverty.

So if guys with guns push people around more, that will abolish selfishness?

The free market doesn’t “encourage” anything. It is a series of uncoerced exchanges.