G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Maybe Chesterton was prophetic when he said “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” If you look at the United States and its evolution it went from mom and pop stores and small businesses to the megaconglamorates and pseudo monopolies that Republicans so jealously defend these days. And of course big farmers get their subsidies, agrarian welfare I like to think of it, to make sure the big farms stay healthy and in control. In Central California, there used to be hundreds and hundreds of small farms but in the last 50 years the big, high-powered agricultural companies have taken over and driven the little guy to sell out. Big business controls the U.S. now and are we really living in a healthy form of capitalism or the end-game of extreme capitalism which is this corporate domination stuff? Everyone (including me) was critical of Obama for bailing out the “too big to fail” corporations but ironically the conservatives that are most critical of the bail-outs should blame the excessive conservatism that got just a few corporations so powerful that they can sink our economy…
I think the goal of distributism was noble actually…to give the means of production and wealth and capital to many, many people. But ultimately that’s not very realistic to do. It’s not socialism because the government doesn’t own the land, people would. But how would it be implimented? That’s the problem. It’s a touch pie-in-the-sky IMO. I’d much rather have a myriad small farmers and small businesses than these corrupt tycoons in corporations running our country but it’s the implimentation that would be a killer. There’s too much private property already owned. It would seem an almost Soviet-style collectivization would have to preceed the dolling out of the property to everyone later. So socialism would seem a temporary necessity before redistributing it all as private property in theory? Perhaps I’m wrong. I think distributism allows for several families or several folks in a community owning land together, etc. I’m no expert in the theory.
I’ll give Chesterton credit in that he seems consistent with Catholic thinking on property and economics, at least in line with popes like Leo XIII. I know Leo’s thinking on property seems similar to Chesterton’s.
I like the fact that the theory would bolster middle class prosperity, give land to more of the middle class, strengthen small business, and be a natural anti-trust type of deal but I don’t think I’d like the effect on unions it would have. It probably would eliminate social security, another government safeguard I value personally.
I personally would just like a blend of old fashioned Republican values (a la Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and the gang) coupled with some government systems like social security and medicare as well as many of the government agencies we have now with modest cuts to many sectors of government that we either don’t need or don’t need to blow so much $$$ on. I’m happy to see Republican tea party congressmen stepping up and saying they’ll cut defense spending. Right on. About time.
I think the goal of distributism was noble actually…to give the means of production and wealth and capital to many, many people. But ultimately that’s not very realistic to do. It’s not socialism because the government doesn’t own the land, people would. But how would it be implimented? That’s the problem. It’s a touch pie-in-the-sky IMO. I’d much rather have a myriad small farmers and small businesses than these corrupt tycoons in corporations running our country but it’s the implimentation that would be a killer. There’s too much private property already owned. It would seem an almost Soviet-style collectivization would have to preceed the dolling out of the property to everyone later. So socialism would seem a temporary necessity before redistributing it all as private property in theory? Perhaps I’m wrong. I think distributism allows for several families or several folks in a community owning land together, etc. I’m no expert in the theory.
I’ll give Chesterton credit in that he seems consistent with Catholic thinking on property and economics, at least in line with popes like Leo XIII. I know Leo’s thinking on property seems similar to Chesterton’s.
I like the fact that the theory would bolster middle class prosperity, give land to more of the middle class, strengthen small business, and be a natural anti-trust type of deal but I don’t think I’d like the effect on unions it would have. It probably would eliminate social security, another government safeguard I value personally.
I personally would just like a blend of old fashioned Republican values (a la Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and the gang) coupled with some government systems like social security and medicare as well as many of the government agencies we have now with modest cuts to many sectors of government that we either don’t need or don’t need to blow so much $$$ on. I’m happy to see Republican tea party congressmen stepping up and saying they’ll cut defense spending. Right on. About time.
