How usurers made the sexual revolution inevitable, and continue to support it
January 6, 2015 § 33 Comments
In the discussion below, commenter Ita Scripta Est cites libertarian Murray Rothbard on the subject of usury:
Implicit intention meant that if someone really believed his contract not to be a loan, then it was not usurious, even though it might be a loan in practice. This of course paved the way for the practical elimination of the ban on usury.
If this doesn’t bring to mind the progressive “primacy of conscience” maneuver, it certainly should. If you close your eyes tight, really really believe that what you are doing (or what you support doing) is not morally wrong, and click your heels together three times, then it isn’t morally wrong! You are still a good person! Your fundamental option is still oriented toward God because you say so, dammit, and nobody is in a position to deny your purely subjective self assessment.
Sexual revolutionaries have made no innovations in their theological approach: they are just mindlessly following their groins along a path already well established by usurers. Present day progressives are carrying out the paint-by-numbers playbook established centuries earlier by usurers — by the so-called ‘free market’ sort who insist that consensual contracts are presumptively licit.
The first Catholics to insist that wickedness can be transformed into good through a magical invocation of the primacy of conscience were not sexual revolutionaries: they were economic “free marketers”. Neither the usury prohibition nor the contraception prohibition are limits on human flourishing. Quite the contrary: both place perfectly reasonable limits on intrinsically fraudulent actions, and ignoring them destroys the lives of the poor more than anyone else.
The sexual revolution is an inevitable, banal concomitant of the (so-called) ‘free market’.