Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Libertarians in Heaven Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/blessed_libertarian#13522 Post contents: I am not a reader of the Remnant nor am I associated with the SSPX, but I greatly appreciate the posts of Dr. Boyd D. Cathey both on this thread and many others. He has shown himself a gentleman and a scholar, truly. On more than one occasion in the past I have found myself in agreement with I am not Sparticus, but I find his (or her) posts in response to Dr. Cathey unreasonable and silly boarding on the histrionic. Why not follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI whom you claim to revere, and dialogue with the SSPX? Regarding the infallibility of Quanta Cura, for what it’s worth, I second what Dr. Cathey writes, the document is infallible. The criteria that Dr.Cathey gives are correct and they are clearly fulfilled for anyone to see. In the past I have taken strong exception to some positions of Mr. Cundiff. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I appreciate many of his posts esp. his efforts to categorize and synthesize conservative thought. It is for the same reason that I appreciate Mr. Purcell i.e. the synthetic quality of his thought, although as with Mr. Cundiff I have been critical of him in the past. Which brings me to a question and challenge for Mr. Purcell: In the first paragraph of your article you wrote "I said I supposed I was pretty much a libertarian" but in response to Harry Wisniewski you say, "I am no expert on libertarianism..." How does this fit together? Maybe you have another position on liberty that doesn’t quite fit the libertarian label. I would like to hear more about your thinking on liberty and particularly with regard to the idea of progress. Let me explain what I'm thinking: In the past you have express your interest and/or admiration for Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong S.J., Pierre Teilhard de Chardin S.J.,and John Deely who espouse an evolutionary worldview, or in the case of McLuhan, whose thinking develops or at least has been read as developing the an important evolutionary thinker i.e. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. My impression is that you hold to a something a Teilhardian advance in consciousness and freedom but with a derailment in the early modern period which is being repaired by the advent of semiotics and Austrian economics as they pick up neglected Scholastic strands. It is too bad that potentially fruitful conversations such as these are at the mercy of the blog format! After all isn’t continuity a conservative principle? The administrators should consider opening a forum where conversations on issues raised in the comments can Sent at: 2008 09 05