The Fred Martinez Report

Posts

Google AI: Michel Villey’s critique of modern rights centers on the idea that shifting the focus from objective cosmic justice (the just "thing" owed, rooted in Roman law and Aquinas) to subjective human "rights" (individual moral powers) birthed dangerous individualism and legal formalism.Exploring this intellectual pivot reveals exactly how these later philosophers built upon the framework Villey criticized:Jesuit Francisco Suárez: Villey viewed Suárez as a primary culprit in establishing modern subjective rights. Suárez argued that human beings possess an innate "power" or "dominion" over their own actions and property, separating the individual will from the objective order. This shift laid the groundwork for modern natural rights language.Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes took the subjective "faculties" of will and power that Suárez explored and completely secularized them. For Hobbes, the ultimate "right of nature" is a limitless individual liberty to preserve oneself. Villey critiqued this specifically because it abandoned classical justice and reduced law to a tool of subjective power.John Locke: Locke built heavily upon Suárez’s ideas of self-ownership and property, heavily defining individual rights as God-given entitlements to life, liberty, and property. Villey’s critique targets this Lockean trajectory, arguing that constructing society around these atomic, rights-bearing "monads" ultimately undermines true, objective social justice.

Michel Villey’s critique of modern rights centers on the idea that shifting the focus from objective cosmic justice (the just "thing" owed, rooted in Roman law and Aquinas) to subjective human "rights" (individual moral powers) birthed dangerous individualism and legal formalism. [ 1 , 2 ] Exploring this intellectual pivot reveals exactly how these later philosophers built upon the framework Villey criticized: Jesuit Francisco Suárez: Villey viewed Suárez as a primary culprit in establishing modern subjective rights. Suárez argued that human beings possess an innate "power" or "dominion" over their own actions and property, separating the individual will from the objective order. This shift laid the groundwork for modern natural rights language. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes took the subjective "faculties" of will and power that Suárez explored and completely secularized them. For Hobbes, the ultimate "right of nature...

Google AI: Michel Villey argued that the modern concept of "subjective rights" (subjectiva jura)—inherent claims possessed by individuals—stems from a distortion of classical Roman law, originating in 14th-century nominalism (specifically William of Ockham). He believed this ultimately led to the highly individualistic rights discourse of Hobbes and Locke.Exploring the historical and philosophical impact of this critique offers two fascinating avenues:1. The Lineage to Hobbes and LockeNominalism to Liberalism: Tracing how Villey argued Ockham's theological nominalism birthed the idea that humans possess an individual "will" and personal rights to things, laying the groundwork for Hobbes and Locke to develop the modern state of nature.The "State of Nature" & Self-Preservation: Examining how Hobbes and Locke translated these subjective rights into a baseline right to self-preservation and property, setting the foundation for the social contract.The Shift from Duties to Rights: Exploring Villey’s critique that this movement replaced the classical, objective framework of justice (finding what is fair in a given relationship) with a focus on self-interested individual liberty.

Michel Villey argued that the modern concept of "subjective rights" ( subjectiva jura )—inherent claims possessed by individuals—stems from a distortion of classical Roman law, originating in 14th-century nominalism (specifically William of Ockham). He believed this ultimately led to the highly individualistic rights discourse of Hobbes and Locke. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Exploring the historical and philosophical impact of this critique offers two fascinating avenues: 1. The Lineage to Hobbes and Locke Nominalism to Liberalism: Tracing how Villey argued Ockham's theological nominalism birthed the idea that humans possess an individual "will" and personal rights to things, laying the groundwork for Hobbes and Locke to develop the modern state of nature. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] The "State of Nature" & Self-Preservation: Examining how Hobbes and Locke translated these subjective rights into a baseline right to self-preservation and property, setting the foundation for...

Google AI: Michel Villey’s historical critique brilliantly traces how Western legal thought shifted from Aristotelian objective justice to modern subjective rights. By identifying \(14\)th-century Franciscan poverty debates and Ockham's nominalism as catalysts, Villey argued that law mutated from discovering a social balance to enforcing arbitrary individual powers.Villey's core thesis outlines the following key transformations:Classical vs. Modern ConceptionsClassical (Aristotelian/Roman) Justice: Law was rooted in objective reality. The jurist's role was to observe interpersonal relationships and find the proper balance (\(suumcuique\)—to each his due) in any given real-world scenario.Modern Subjective Rights: Rooted in nominalism, this framework denies a natural external order in favor of "individual will." Law is inverted into a subjective, arbitrary claim possessed by individuals (the precursor to modern human rights).Key Mechanics of Villey's ArgumentNominalism over Realism: The medieval turn toward nominalism rejected the idea that things in the real world possess inherent, discoverable objective value or natures.Focus on the Individual: The legal focal point shifted from external, interpersonal acts of justice to the internal faculties and personal claims of the individual.The "Tool" of Law: Villey argued this inverted the purpose of law; instead of being the art of discovering a just balance among competing claims, law became merely an instrument to enforce subjective human will.The Franciscan ConundrumVilley paid close attention to how debates over Franciscan poverty pioneered this concept. The Franciscans sought to use goods without having any legal "right" (\(ius\)) to them. To defend this, thinkers like William of Ockham conceptualized \(ius\) as an individual power or moral capacity. You can explore the mechanics of this philosophical shift in The origins of the modern notion of subjective right or examine Villey's broader framework of justice in The essence of law according to Michel Villey.

Michel Villey’s historical critique brilliantly traces how Western legal thought shifted from Aristotelian objective justice to modern subjective rights. By identifying \(14\)th-century Franciscan poverty debates and Ockham's nominalism as catalysts, Villey argued that law mutated from discovering a social balance to enforcing arbitrary individual powers. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Villey's core thesis outlines the following key transformations: Classical vs. Modern Conceptions Classical (Aristotelian/Roman) Justice : Law was rooted in objective reality. The jurist's role was to observe interpersonal relationships and find the proper balance (\(suumcuique\)—to each his due) in any given real-world scenario. Modern Subjective Rights : Rooted in nominalism, this framework denies a natural external order in favor of "individual will." Law is inverted into a subjective, arbitrary claim possessed by individuals (the precursor to modern human rights). [ 1 , 2 ] Key Mechanics of Vil...

AI Overview Edward Feser, a prominent conservative Catholic philosopher, views both strict socialism and radical laissez-faire capitalism as fundamentally flawed because both stem from the atomistic, anti-traditional tenets of modern liberalism. Grounded in Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law, his critique outlines distinct issues with both systems.The Socialist ErrorFeser argues that socialism is intrinsically evil and inherently incompatible with human flourishing, particularly the traditional family.Destruction of the Family: He posits that the basic structure of the family is a natural institution. Egalitarian socialism erodes this by centralizing economic control, absorbing the family’s natural educational and supportive roles, and treating individuals—rather than families—as the state's primary subjects.Totalitarian Creep: To enforce strict economic equality, the state must constantly intervene in the natural associations of civil society, stripping individuals of their autonomy and private property rights.The Problem with Laissez-Faire CapitalismWhile Feser acknowledges that capitalism has vastly increased material prosperity—rejecting Marxian claims of inevitable economic impoverishment—he remains highly critical of its moral consequences.Spiritual Impoverishment: He warns that unbridled free markets tend to commodify everything, prioritizing a consumerist ethos over spiritual, familial, and civic well-being.Hostility to Social Justice: Feser has examined the limitations of doctrinaire libertarianism. He argues that a society must be ordered toward "The Good" rather than pure freedom, meaning the state, community, or religious institutions must have the authority to regulate markets, enforce just wages, and protect the common good.The "Third Way"Instead of the binary of socialism vs. capitalism, Feser advocates for principles rooted in traditional Catholic social teaching (such as subsidiarity and solidarity). This economic philosophy champions private property and free markets but subordinates them to the moral law, the needs of the family, and the broader common good, steering clear of both state collectivism and radical individualism.

AI Overview Edward Feser, a prominent conservative Catholic philosopher, views both strict socialism and radical laissez-faire capitalism as fundamentally flawed because both stem from the atomistic, anti-traditional tenets of modern liberalism. Grounded in Aristotelian-Thomistic natural law, his critique outlines distinct issues with both systems. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] The Socialist Error Feser argues that socialism is intrinsically evil and inherently incompatible with human flourishing, particularly the traditional family. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Destruction of the Family: He posits that the basic structure of the family is a natural institution. Egalitarian socialism erodes this by centralizing economic control, absorbing the family’s natural educational and supportive roles, and treating individuals—rather than families—as the state's primary subjects. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] Totalitarian Creep: To enforce strict economic equality, the state must constantly intervene in the na...

Thomas Fleming at Chroinicles: Our old friend Tom Woods has painted himself into a corner.

https://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/11/the_church_and_the_libertarian.html Thomas Fleming at Chroinicles: Our old friend Tom Woods has painted himself into a corner. Portraying himself as an uncompromising ultratraditionalist who will have no truck either with the Novus Ordo or with anyone who does not condemn the Orthodox to Hell, he nonetheless takes it upon himself to contradict the Church’s fundamental teachings on morality and society. Woods’s attempt to limit his attack to the encyclicals of Leo XIII and his successors is at best disingenuous, since the Church has spoken with one voice on our responsibility, both individual and collective, to provide for the poor and to practice economic justice. The voice was and is the voice of Christ. Woods is not rejecting merely this or that Pope or even the traditions of the Church: He is rejecting the teachings of Christ. If he or his libertarian friends dispute this statement, let them cite the Scriptural passages and author...

Feser: My own view is that both Woods and his critics are correct. The critics are, I think, right to hold that the just wage doctrine is a matter of binding moral teaching. Woods is right to hold that there are serious and perhaps insuperable practical difficulties involved in trying to implement that teaching via minimum wage laws. Part of the problem here seems to be that Woods and his critics are to a great extent talking past each other. Both of them appear to ignore the fact that Leo does not claim to be saying anything that settles any matter of economic controversy. Nor does he even claim to be saying anything that strictly requires any particular piece of legislative action; indeed, Leo explicitly advises us to “avoid unwarranted governmental intervention, especially since circumstances of business, season, and place are so varied.” His constant emphasis was not on legislation, but rather on the promotion of voluntary organizations – workingmen’s associations, mutual aid societies and the like – and the revival of Christianity as the most crucial aspects to solving the moral problems raised by the rise of modern industrial capitalism. Leo’s teaching, and the emphasis in Catholic social teaching generally on subsidiarity, should make us think twice about whether all matters of justice are best dealt with via the blunt instruments of state power. Austrian economic theory, and especially Hayek’s emphasis

Social Justice Reconsidered: Austrian Economics and Catholic Social Teachingh https://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/socialjustice.html Edward Feser [Hayek Memorial Lecture delivered at the 2005 Austrian Scholars Conference in Auburn, AL] It is an honor to be able to present the Hayek Memorial Lecture, and I thank the Mises Institute for the invitation. One of the merits of the Institute, and of its Austrian Scholars Conference series in particular, is the attention scholars associated with it have paid to how religious issues bear on matters of politics and economics, and vice versa. This is a refreshing change from the unreflective and sometimes condescending secularism that tends to prevail as often within other free market oriented organizations as it does within the contemporary intellectual culture generally. It also gives me an excuse to explore here the relationship between two intellectual traditions of great interest t...