Why is Libertarianism so Intolerable?

A rewrite of a piece in First Things:

Arguments for Libertarianism have become predictable. Most include an historical homage to long established tradition: Look for mention of property rights, the golden age of industrialization, and Thrasymachus' theory of justice. Catholic authors typically proceed to locate their claims outside the magisterial teaching of modern Catholic Social Teaching: Look for rebuttals or avoidance of Rerum novarum or any one of the subsequent encyclicals, which commemorate its anniversary (see here, p. 42ff.). Next, there are the literary sources, which can be mined for any number of bombastic or polemical gems. Rothbard can always be depended upon to deal one’s opponent a good drubbing. And yet, the appeal to liberty, successful megacorporations, and some of the best* economists of the age leave most unmoved.

This same disconnect between theory and practice is evident in the lives of libertarians themselves. In short, many “so-called libertarians” are hypocrites. While decrying the evils of big government and insistently re-proposing the perennial appeal of free market life, many libertarians continue to avail themselves of all of civilization’s amenities and fail to take their principles to their conclusion. I count myself among these conflicted adherents. I extol the virtues of a liberty-filled life and persist in a vocation that traditionally places me at the center of the world’s largest cities. Embarrassing. With the force of Aristotelian-Thomistic anthropology, a deeply felt robber baron nostalgia, and even “patron saints” of the movement like Fr. Sirico, how is it that these arguments wield such anemic purchase?

The last paragraphs can be taken pretty much as-is. Note: I'm not a libertarian, though the rewrite of this would say I am. I'm also not a distributist, but there are nice things about it.

EDIT: In all fairness, the piece wasn't that bad. There is some point there: no matter what supporters do, nobody really cares about distributists. I mean, no matter what anybody says, I'm all like, whatevs. Libertarians, of course, are completely intolerable and tiresome.

Prediction Update.

So now that we've finished the semester, we can comment on some of my predictions.

1. Too early to comment on Steve King.
   
2. The Cubs are 17-29, so they're on pace.
   
3. Not yet, but there are rumblings of another one coming up!
   
4. I was apparently hedging my bets too much, though I was wrong about Utah, they did issue a "stay" on the ruling.
   
5. Sherlock was pretty great.
   
6. It looks like Bitcoin may stabilize. The IRS ruled that it is treated as property, not as, say, "foreign currency". However, I was definitely correct that it's technolibertarian nonsense.
   

David Brooks has been and continues to be a wanker.

A less ambitious setting of "Blessed is the Man"

The previous setting, of course, is a bit ambitious for an average choir and is probably distracting for most people. Most OCA churches seem to like doing the Bailey setting, which is a fine setting. He apparently wrote it at age 22, if I can do the math correctly. Anyway, here's another setting that sounds nice, is in English, and is also composed by an American Orthodox composer:



Sheet music is available on his web page: Kurt Sander Score Downloads.

Best setting of "Blessed is the Man"

And the best performance of that setting - Kiev Caves Lavra Chant. I think this is the Novospassky Monastery Choir performing it, but it doesn't say.

New Hobby: Nous

My new hobby is, whenever anybody refers to the "nous", to pretend they're speaking French poorly and also think they're therefore referring to something that has to do with the Paris School.

Also, "phronema" is a misspelling for "phenomena".

Not that I run into people who use those terms unironically anymore.

Other music notes.

These are my opinions at the moment, I'm noting them for future reference to see if my mind changes.

Four-part settings of Byzantine music just don't work. Especially when they add a lot of weird stuff in the non-melody parts. If you want Byzantine, just do Byzantine.

If you do have a Byzantine-ish setting, please have an ison or something marked. It makes things sound better.

Mixing "normal" Byzantine music and "normal" 4-part Russian music just doesn't - at least not generally - work. Pick one and roll with it. Maybe other polyphonic stuff can mix with Russian stuff, but the contrast of those two styles is just too great.

It would be really nice to have a tenor. And a guarantee of one extra person on every other part. At the moment, we generally have a soprano/melody, have a bass when I'm there, and usually have an alto. Things rapidly get complicated when people disappear. At least, I presume from seeing what it's like when other people aren't here. I don't know what it's like when I'm not here.

I appreciate the need for well-assembled music books. I prefer books assembled in "modular" fashion rather than with everything integrated. If done well, that makes it easier to switch things out if necessary.

It would be nice to be able to change some of the music occasionally - or permanently. But I do appreciate how the previous points make change difficult. The ideal, of course, is to do everything I know how to do already, especially the pieces I like, and maybe a few new things, and to do it all in the way in which I am familiar with doing them.

EDIT: Another note is that, generally, the singing has always been a problem for "other people" to me in the past. If I had known, I suppose, that I would have needed to do something with it in the future, I might have paid more attention to the music. A lot of these pieces I know, but had never even seen until last year. The exception is some vespers and matins music.