New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | April 5, 2005

Now that the pope's dead, should we all confess our Cold War sins? Matt Welch witnesses.

Comments

|4.5.05 @ 8:44PM|#

Nice reflection; with a pedantic commen or two:

"The Pope forgave his assassin, for crying out loud . . . ."

* Technically can one forgive one's assassin at all, because having an assassin means one is dead at that person's hands? In this case it would mean he forgave a urinary tract infection. Perhaps "attempted assassin" (referring to Acga) is better.

* I also dont think he forgave his attempted assassin for crying out loud, I think he forgave him for shooting him.:-) Sorry couldn't resist.

Nice thoughts, however on the now-ancient Cold War.

|4.5.05 @ 9:39PM|#

Why would you mar an insightful, nuanced, humane column with the assertion that the pope was "against capitalism?" Especially when, in that same column, you quote him as writing, �The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this means that productive factors have been properly employed and corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied?�

Recognizing that capitalist exchange is a good thing, but that it isn't sufficient to solve all of humanity's problems, or express all worthwhile values, counts as being "against capitalism?"

Oh, wait, forgot where I was posting.

|4.5.05 @ 11:02PM|#

I had the same reaction to the 'against capitalism' statement, Joe. While I do think that capitalism solves the vast majority of the world's ills, the passages quoted would hardly constitute an anti-capitalist perspective. This is the Pope we're talking about-- of course he's going to talk about men not being able to live by bread alone.

|4.5.05 @ 11:21PM|#

�The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well."

That's understatement if ever I heard one.

It is profit that allowed the Pope enough liesure time to stick his head up his mystical ass and wonder about the ligitimate value of profit. Without profit he would scavenging carrion, like the rest of us, on a savanna in Africa.

|4.5.05 @ 11:23PM|#

A couple of observations:

(1) Shouldn't libertarians of all people be skeptical of the (implicit) claim that communism was so intrinsically strong a system that if not for one or two remarkable individuals, it would still be going? I know that the "Reagan/Thatcher/the Pope brought down communism" people do not explicitly say that it was, but isn't it implicit in what they are saying?

(2) I think that Max Sawicky is right that the people who were *really* most opposed to the Pope were neither real conservatives nor real progressives (nor even real libertarians) but rather pseudo-libertarian hawks--some of them disagreed with him about Iraq *and* abortion *and* stem-cell research *and* capital punishment *and* the idea that unbridled "consumerism" was a bad thing. And yet now they tell us what a great man he was and how he brought down Communism...

|4.6.05 @ 10:47AM|#

Here's a sed contra to Eagleton's view of the Polish Catholic hierarchy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28398-2005Apr5.html

|4.6.05 @ 10:52AM|#

From Matt Welch's article:
"the least we can do to honor the old guy's passing is to recognize our own Cold War sins, and pray that they deserve forgiveness. "

Well, you see, we are all siners, the communists, the capitalists, the Pope.....all equally bad ...
We must all confess our sins and pray.

What infantile relativism and imbecile nonesense !!!

|4.6.05 @ 12:58PM|#

joe:

Recognizing that capitalist exchange is a good thing, but that it isn't sufficient to solve all of humanity's problems, or express all worthwhile values...

A consideration on both of your contentions please, joe:

Which of humanity's problems do you consider insoluble without resort to having some of us using force on others of us? And what about the situation of those with the power to force others, using that power for their own ends and just using the excuse of solving one or another "problem"?

How are values to be expressed except thru voluntary interaction? Anything else is just some of us using government to force others of us to "see it our way".

|4.6.05 @ 2:54PM|#

Rick, I don't give a damn whether you "see it my way," or not, when it comes to letting poor children go to the doctor. I care about making sure the poor kids can go to the doctor.

Libertoids love to point out that forced "charity" isn't charity in the above situation, as if it's somehow relevant to the question of whether taxpayer-funded health care is moral. Well, I'm not trying to save the souls of people who pay taxes. I'm trying to keep kids from suffering and dying unnecessarily.

|4.6.05 @ 3:10PM|#

JOE, I don't give a damn whether you "see it my way," or not, when it comes to keeping poor children from getting the gay. I care about making sure the poor kids can be protected from queers.

In any pissing contest over "values" enforced by the police power of the State it ends up coming down to who can get and hold power.

|4.6.05 @ 3:17PM|#

JOE, I don't give a damn whether you "see it my way," or not, when it comes to letting poor children be condemned to eternal hell. I care about making sure the poor kids can go to the church and get salvation.

|4.6.05 @ 5:03PM|#

joe,

I also think that keeping kids from suffering and dying unnecessarily is a worthy goal. But surely it doesn't warrant you and I forcing others to participate in its pursuit. Also, there is certainly no provision in the Constitution for such a government program. BTW, even if it was justified to force others to pursue this goal, there would be other areas where greater reduction in the and needless death of children could be achieved, such as food for some certain third world nations' kids.

It's tragically ironic that if medicine in this country was conducted in the unregulated manner (BTW, many of the regulations are designed to increase profits for the medical industry) that we libertoids advocate, medical care for the poor and the rest of us would be far less expensive.

billyraybob:

In any pissing contest over "values" enforced by the police power of the State it ends up coming down to who can get and hold power.

Yes, and often the "values" just serve as a pretext for the aquisition and wielding of the power.

|4.6.05 @ 8:31PM|#

"But surely it doesn't warrant you and I forcing others to participate in its pursuit."

No, not surely. In the scheme of things, the lives and health of human beings is far more important than the wealth of human beings.

Yes, that's a values statement. Yes, people I disagree with strongly make values statements as well. Yes, I'm going to have to fight to make sure the values I support win out. Yes, the opposition is going to similarly fight. Yes, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

|4.6.05 @ 10:14PM|#

Very interesting, especially the comparison between the power and cult of personality and hierarchy within these two struggling institutions. I think the battle between the RC Church and Communism was by far more epic and meaningful than some battle between abstract notions of "capitalism" and "marxism." Now, over a decade later, we still live in a mixed socialized economy and Russia lives in a kleptocracy less free than it was in the '80s. What's changed? Much in those countries enslaved by communist tyranny (no less by America, I should add, in Vietnam, et al.)

To understand the battle of the Church in the Eastern Bloc you have to understand the history of Poland and John Paul's role in it. I was born less than 2 months after he become pope and there are no words to describe the unity and feeling of domination over the forces of old and evil at that time related to me by everyone I know. It was like '68 only crosses instead of LSD. No one my age isn't named John or Paul (Pawel). Nobody cared about women's role in the church or the proper use of condoms any more than they do now. (I doubt most Poles even know or care of the Church's stance) Catholicism is not a faith of adherence to rules. It's about a tradition and a grand history. I've always considered myself an atheist Catholic because of this. The power of awe.

When Poland's Communist PM faced John Paul with knees shaking it was not the man he feared. It was the 2000 year old institution, now aligned against him, that he knew he had no chance in hell of denting.

It would be hard for me not to mourn him. Not as a person as much as the embodiment of a popular movement that, at least where I came from, did a lot of good.

|4.6.05 @ 10:44PM|#

In the scheme of things, the lives and health of human beings is far more important than the wealth of human beings.

You, or anyone else, has no right to force your value judgment concerning the health of other people on me. This wrong is compounded by the imposition of political schemes whose purported goal is to maximize health of other people.

Instead of government, there are certainly more ethical, and I would contend more efficacious ways of maximizing the health of other folks. The good thing about voluntary/capitalistic approaches is that there are many different things that may be tried.

Democracy is way over rated; it's liberty that's really groovy.

joe, I'm glad when you challenge our principles and analyses sometimes. But did you ever consider that your presence here might actually be toughening us up and making the libertarian movement stronger? Wouldn't it be an interesting twist if it turned out that that was your intent? :)