No doubt all your devotees are pleased that the Vatican's secretary of state is coming around to seeing things your way. ... A difficulty in the matter at hand I might point to is that the original Peace and Justice proposal publish'd by the bureaucracy for a one world government congrues with the pervaded sense of justice, and peace.
After all, the pontiff has a council on "Justice and Peace" a formal title that permits filler from the usual meanings for these words in the MSM. A council on "Virtue and Justice" would Resist! such filler, and wouldn't sound old-fashion'd and irrelevant to Straussians anyway.
I suppose a tax on transactions in the financial "industry" would have been celebrated by conservatives if it had been brought in by Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher and the proceeds had been used to pay for a strong, competent securities etc regulations oversight system that prevented stuff such as Enron, subprime predatory lending, and the variouis scams that beset Fanny Mae and Freddy Mae (whose names I don't even know how to spell).
Admittedly, that a world government "re-distribute" wealth (quite contrary, incidentally, to Marx who insists that a worker properly owns the fruits of his own labour which accordingly must not be alienated from him, as by Plato's noble lie) goes rather beyond a mere tax on financial transactions.
But the papacy is not opposed to world government or at least of "globalization." According to the editorial, Caritas in Veritate, a unitary governance (regulation, moderamen [as of horses; or the helmsman of a ship]) of globalization is just or obligatory.
The pope apparently holds that this governance should be imposed "through subsidiary and polyarchic institutions" but this proviso concerns only means, not the proper unity of the oikoumene under one governance, which perhaps isn't "like" but in fact is "a mystery power world government," who knows?
On the other hand, "polyarchic" could imply what the editorial's title complains of in the pontiff's council - "Too Much Confusion." Calling for world fairness or something conflicts with a utopian insistence that this fairness occur via prayer + the Brownian motions of the UN, NATO, China, Russia, the Arab world/s, the Islamic world/s, and why not also the British Commonwealth?
Doesn't calling for governance over globalization for the sake of justice imply the institution of a global Caliphate or an even better world state?
2 comments:
It was only a matter of time.
No doubt all your devotees are pleased that the Vatican's secretary of state is coming around to seeing things your way. ... A difficulty in the matter at hand I might point to is that the original Peace and Justice proposal publish'd by the bureaucracy for a one world government congrues with the pervaded sense of justice, and peace.
After all, the pontiff has a council on "Justice and Peace" a formal title that permits filler from the usual meanings for these words in the MSM. A council on "Virtue and Justice" would Resist! such filler, and wouldn't sound old-fashion'd and irrelevant to Straussians anyway.
I suppose a tax on transactions in the financial "industry" would have been celebrated by conservatives if it had been brought in by Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher and the proceeds had been used to pay for a strong, competent securities etc regulations oversight system that prevented stuff such as Enron, subprime predatory lending, and the variouis scams that beset Fanny Mae and Freddy Mae (whose names I don't even know how to spell).
Admittedly, that a world government "re-distribute" wealth (quite contrary, incidentally, to Marx who insists that a worker properly owns the fruits of his own labour which accordingly must not be alienated from him, as by Plato's noble lie) goes rather beyond a mere tax on financial transactions.
But the papacy is not opposed to world government or at least of "globalization." According to the editorial, Caritas in Veritate, a unitary governance (regulation, moderamen [as of horses; or the helmsman of a ship]) of globalization is just or obligatory.
The pope apparently holds that this governance should be imposed "through subsidiary and polyarchic institutions" but this proviso concerns only means, not the proper unity of the oikoumene under one governance, which perhaps isn't "like" but in fact is "a mystery power world government," who knows?
On the other hand, "polyarchic" could imply what the editorial's title complains of in the pontiff's council - "Too Much Confusion." Calling for world fairness or something conflicts with a utopian insistence that this fairness occur via prayer + the Brownian motions of the UN, NATO, China, Russia, the Arab world/s, the Islamic world/s, and why not also the British Commonwealth?
Doesn't calling for governance over globalization for the sake of justice imply the institution of a global Caliphate or an even better world state?
Post a Comment