Distributism has a lot of appeal, but make sure you look at both sides. I would totally accept it, as long as it was voluntary. Much pro-distributism material at the Distributism review. For the con side, don’t miss What’s Wrong with “Distributism”I’m reading up on Distributism thanks to your post!
I couldn’t find the ‘economics’ section the first time around…I guess I gave up too easily.
Thank you and God bless!
Of course, a “regulated free market” is a contradiction in terms.no because an unregulated free market will allow for things like slave labor, child labor, unjust wages, and many other things.The free market is the best thing for society but an unregulated free market is bad for society.
I understand what you are saying I’m just saying what Popes and Bishops have said for the last couple hundred years. The Church has very clearly stated that the free market is the most efficient way to bring about economic growth but an unregulated free market isn’t the best option for the poor because it leaves open the possibility that they poor could be taken advantaged off for the sake of buisness. I think the clearest example of this in today’s world isn’t in our country, becuase our country actually does have regulations even though it is still very free, but in third world countries where factories try and take advantage of free labor. But sweet shops are the clearest example where unregulated capitalism isn’t good. The owner of that factory is taking advantage of someone who is in extreme poverty, and by making them work in dangerous conditions takes away their human dignity. I think the difference between libertarians and Catholics when it comes to economics, is the center of their theories is the economic system, for catholics the center of their theories is the human person. That is why libertarian is ok with unreglated free markets while the church calls for it to be regulated. For the sake of not sounding contradictory I guess we could start calling it the regulated market.Of course, a “regulated free market” is a contradiction in terms.
Too bad the regulations hurt the poorest people. Regulations like occupational licensing, which are mostly a scam designed to cut out competition and raise profits. And regulations like those against home businesses and street venders.
Even the minimum wage hurts more than it helps. Rather than helping those on the bottom rung, the minimum wage tends to be a barrier between the unskilled worker and a job. The government would rather see someone idling around and drawing unemployment than accept a wage that is less than one that the government has unilaterally decided is fair.
If someone can’t produce at the minimum wage, the government writes them off by making it illegal for anyone to employ them at a wage commensurate with their productive abilities.
If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others
both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,”
again a call for government to feed the poor, which may mean that we tax people who can be taxed so we can feed the poor.
Among the basic rights of the human person is to be numbered the right of freely founding unions for working people. These should be able truly to represent them and to contribute to the organizing of economic life in the right way. Included is the right of freely taking part in the activity of these unions without risk of reprisal. Through this orderly participation joined to progressive economic and social formation, all will grow day by day in the awareness of their own function and responsibility, and thus they will be brought to feel that they are comrades in the whole task of economic development and in the attainment of the universal common good according to their capacities and aptitudes.
.It is the duty of society, moreover, according to the circumstances prevailing in it, and in keeping with its role, to help the citizens to find sufficient employment. Finally, remuneration for labor is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good.(6)
Economic development must remain under man’s determination and must not be left to the judgment of a few men or groups possessing too much economic power or of the political community alone or of certain more powerful nations.
Growth is not to be left solely to a kind of mechanical course of the economic activity of individuals, nor to the authority of government. For this reason, doctrines which obstruct the necessary reforms under the guise of a false liberty, and those which subordinate the basic rights of individual persons and groups to the collective organization of production must be shown to be erroneous.(4)
Does this include theft? As individuals, are we able to judge what constitutes “extreme necessity” and “riches”? These really seem like shades of gray to me…especially if we’re using them to justify stealing from others.If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others
I see this purely as a call to the individual (and “individuals” includes the whole world). A government is a group of individuals entrusted with the the resources of others and certain mandates…the fewer those mandates are, the better. Those mandates should be very lowest common denominators (i.e. what we can all agree on)…namely, defending our rights to religious freedom, freedom from harm, fraud, etc.both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,”
again a call for government to feed the poor, which may mean that we tax people who can be taxed so we can feed the poor.