Distributism and the welfare state

[manualman]

Perhaps I was not clear.

Distributism is not compatible with a modern state with high industrial production, high agricultural production, high states of medical care, and so on.

Thus sayeth the Rob. But with no supporting information or argument. Just bald assertion. That might fly on the Rush Limbaugh show, but it doesn’t fly with me.

You’re still just tossing sound bites out without any real argument or analysis. If you’re referring to the Dorothy Day version of Distributism (which I have not widely read), you might have a point. But I’m not.

I’m simply proposing that we alter our legal and tax structures to stop with the ridiculous notion that the hero of economic prosperity is the investor and start building structures that favor the entrepreneur, the inventor and the hard worker rather than the guy who started with lots of money and merely invested it in the hard work of others, only to reap the majority of the profit at the end and pay less taxes on it than the guy who actually did the work.

Calling me a socialist ignores the reality that I’m NOT in favor of the government owning all industry and productive assets. I actually want them to own very little of it. But I also don’t want 0.01% of the population to own the MAJORITY of it either. That’s where we are today and it’s because we’ve had a investor-favored version of free market economics instead of entrepreneur-favored version for many decades. I see little difference between the tyranny of a few government officials holding the reins of unlimited economic power and the tyranny of a few private citizens holding it all. Either way is tyranny.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You may notice that Zoltan and I don’t agree.

How true…

Nor do I agree that he is correct about what Distributism IS. Our critics generally assert that Distributism is not a free market system and that only capitalism is. This is incorrect and borders on dishonest. Distributism does not need any more command/control over the economy than capitalism does. It just has different systemic priorities and sets tax and law policy accordingly.

Firstly, ANY government control or regulation of distributism or Capitalism renders them NON-FREE MARKET economic systems.

Secondly, you mention tax policy.

Hilaire Belloc advocated a “differential tax” in order to progressively move towards a distributist society. The exact same policy that was originally advocated by socialists.

Belloc said that “…the aim of all sound social reform should be the wider distribution of property” and that the differential tax is “a tax specially aimed against excessive accumulation.” This better distribution of property is needed for freedom to exist, he says, because: “Where it is only income that is well distributed men are still under the thumb of whoever or whatever pays that income, but where ownership is well distributed the owners are, all of them, free men.”

I would first point out that a differential tax stifles progress and holds society back. It may cause a more even distribution of property, but the “excessive accumulation” that Belloc wishes to prevent is the motivation of entrepreneurs. The vast majority of things which have helped to better society and raise the living standards of all men were things the creation of which can be attributed to nothing but the motivation for “excessive accumulation.” The entrepreneurs and innovators would cease to exist in our society if it were modeled after Belloc‟s ideal.

The would-be innovator has two options:

1)He can put in a lot of effort and create some new thing that will benefit society, knowing that he will not be allowed to accumulate too much additional wealth as a result of his additional toil, or

1. He can continue in the labor that he already does without being an innovator and accumulate roughly the same amount of wealth that he would under the first choice as well.

Human nature being what it is… the would-be innovator will always choose the second option.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It would be “completely unworkable” for a government that finds itself with vast holdings of land and resources to make that land available “free” in small parcels to those who would put it to productive work? The history of the USA says otherwise. The Homestead Act, intentionally or not, was possible THE most successful distributist policy in world history and enjoys much of the credit for the size and extent of the American middle class at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, which set the stage for much of the later strength and growth of the middle class.

Come to think about it…America was probably very close to a distributist society from its discovery up to the Industrial Revolution when it failed.

The Capitalistic system, wherein the less fortunate men could work for the more fortunate ones, necessarily arose after distributism failed. Capitalism came as a savior to the impoverished. They could now survive by working for the more fortunate man.

Perhaps it would indeed be unworkable to get a completely even distribution of productive assets. But if you’ve actually read as much as you claim, you should realize that establishing economic structures and policies that trend that direction is still a distinctly Distributist form of economic system. After all, capitalism hardly guarantees that if you work hard and invest smart you’ll get rich, does it? Treat each with equal fairness in evaluation, please.

Capitalism guarantees the OPPORTUNITY and freedom to get rich.
Distributism guarantees EQUALITY at the lowest common denominator.

 

[Paleocon]

ANY government control or regulation of distributism or Capitalism renders them NON-FREE

See my signature.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

See my signature.

I agree with your signature…but sometimes I don’t agree with Thomas.

Aquinas did say: “it is erroneous to maintain that it is unlawful for man to possess property.”

But…he also defended distributism

“It is no theft for a man to take another‟s property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court.”

Trouble is…he was wrong. (I hope that is not a mortal sin)

Legality and morality are separate matters. What the state deems to be “legal” may be immoral. If rape were legalized, it would still be a damnable act.

The arbitrary dictations of judges and politicians do not make things justified before God. Does the fact that the judge decided to allow Christ to be crucified release His persecutors from any moral responsibility? If a court decided to allow me to keep another person as a sex slave, would it not still remain immoral for me to do so? Does the fact that the courts allow abortion make abortion any less of a crime from a natural law perspective?

To take property from private owners who do not wish to sell and to give it to others is theft.

 

[sallybutler]

I agree with your signature…but sometimes I don’t agree with Thomas.

Aquinas did say: “it is erroneous to maintain that it is unlawful for man to possess property.”

But…he also defended distributism

“It is no theft for a man to take another‟s property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court.”

Trouble is…he was wrong. (I hope that is not a mortal sin)

Legality and morality are separate matters. What the state deems to be “legal” may be immoral. If rape were legalized, it would still be a damnable act.

The arbitrary dictations of judges and politicians do not make things justified before God. Does the fact that the judge decided to allow Christ to be crucified release His persecutors from any moral responsibility? If a court decided to allow me to keep another person as a sex slave, would it not still remain immoral for me to do so? Does the fact that the courts allow abortion make abortion any less of a crime from a natural law perspective?

To take property from private owners who do not wish to sell and to give it to others is theft.

But how do we determine ownership. Is it not thru laws? So can not the law that giveth also taketh away?

 

[Paleocon]

I agree with your signature…but sometimes I don’t agree with Thomas.

My point was that you are asserting the liberal idea that freedom of choice is a higher good than, well, good.

“It is no theft for a man to take another‟s property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court.”

Trouble is…he was wrong. (I hope that is not a mortal sin)

Legality and morality are separate matters. What the state deems to be “legal” may be immoral. If rape were legalized, it would still be a damnable act.

The arbitrary dictations of judges and politicians do not make things justified before God. Does the fact that the judge decided to allow Christ to be crucified release His persecutors from any moral responsibility? If a court decided to allow me to keep another person as a sex slave, would it not still remain immoral for me to do so? Does the fact that the courts allow abortion make abortion any less of a crime from a natural law perspective?

Unless he specifies otherwise, Aquinas, when referring to laws, court judgments and the like, refers only to just laws. He did not consider unjust laws as being laws at all.

To take property from private owners who do not wish to sell and to give it to others is theft.

On the contrary, the state may lawfully force property owners subject to it to sell their lands to it, provided that it have the common good in mind. Moreover it may also seize property without remuneration as punishment of a violation of the law, or may order that which was received wrongly, returned.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My point was that you are asserting the liberal idea that freedom of choice is a higher good than, well, good.

Depends on what you mean by “good”
Freedom of choice ranks pretty high up there. In fact Freedom, any freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

Unless he specifies otherwise, Aquinas, when referring to laws, court judgments and the like, refers only to just laws. He did not consider unjust laws as being laws at all.

So he is not defending distributism…???

On the contrary, the state may lawfully force property owners subject to it to sell their lands to it, provided that it have the common good in mind. Moreover it may also seize property without remuneration as punishment of a violation of the law, or may order that which was received wrongly, returned.

“…provided that it have the common good in mind.”

But to give it to another is theft.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But how do we determine ownership. Is it not thru laws? So can not the law that giveth also taketh away?

The law exists to protect our personal property and insure that NO ONE taketh it away.

(Possession is nine-tenths of the law)

 

[Ridgerunner]

How true…

Firstly, ANY government control or regulation of distributism or Capitalism renders them NON-FREE MARKET economic systems.

Secondly, you mention tax policy.

Hilaire Belloc advocated a “differential tax” in order to progressively move towards a distributist society. The exact same policy that was originally advocated by socialists.

Belloc said that “…the aim of all sound social reform should be the wider distribution of property” and that the differential tax is “a tax specially aimed against excessive accumulation.” This better distribution of property is needed for freedom to exist, he says, because: “Where it is only income that is well distributed men are still under the thumb of whoever or whatever pays that income, but where ownership is well distributed the owners are, all of them, free men.”

I would first point out that a differential tax stifles progress and holds society back. It may cause a more even distribution of property, but the “excessive accumulation” that Belloc wishes to prevent is the motivation of entrepreneurs. The vast majority of things which have helped to better society and raise the living standards of all men were things the creation of which can be attributed to nothing but the motivation for “excessive accumulation.” The entrepreneurs and innovators would cease to exist in our society if it were modeled after Belloc‟s ideal.

The would-be innovator has two options:

1)He can put in a lot of effort and create some new thing that will benefit society, knowing that he will not be allowed to accumulate too much additional wealth as a result of his additional toil, or

1. He can continue in the labor that he already does without being an innovator and accumulate roughly the same amount of wealth that he would under the first choice as well.

Human nature being what it is… the would-be innovator will always choose the second option.

I’m not sure what’s wrong with Belloc’s notion of progressive taxation. Perhaps that can be explained here. It has seemed to me that it, along with a mild degree of inflation, is a sort of “use it or lose it” mechanism which encourages, rather than discourages, profitable investment by those who have wealth.

One needs to realize that Belloc (Chesterton too) lived in the early 20th Century. I’m no economist, but I can read. And if one reads the literature of their time (though mostly before) one realizes that entire classes lived on totally passive incomes. The wealthy tended to put their money with bankers who invested conservatively in order to produce a predictable and safe income stream for people who had no role at all in the production of that income stream.

I like “use it or lose it” as an economic policy myself. I have no problem with rewarding the entrepreneur even to what some might think of as obscene levels, so long as it’s a truly productive enterprise he’s engaging in. But he has to be made to realize that the effort must be sustained. He cannot, like Faust, be able to declare to the moment “stay, you are so beautiful”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Come to think about it…America was probably very close to a distributist society from its discovery up to the Industrial Revolution when it failed.

The Capitalistic system, wherein the less fortunate men could work for the more fortunate ones, necessarily arose after distributism failed. Capitalism came as a savior to the impoverished. They could now survive by working for the more fortunate man.

Capitalism guarantees the OPPORTUNITY and freedom to get rich.
Distributism guarantees EQUALITY at the lowest common denominator.

I would half agree with you; the first part of the first sentence, at least. Of interest, at the time of the American Revolution the colonists were, per capita, the wealthiest people on earth. They were far wealthier than their British cousins in Britain on a per capita basis.

One of the big reasons for that was the fact that land could be obtained by “sweat equity” and little else, and land was still the primary measure of wealth at the time. Another was the difficulty in the British government regulating trade. Colonists simply tended to undertake whatever trade for which they had any talent, and were too scattered (and oftentimes too deceptive) to be as tightly regulated as were their Brit bretheren.

I question that the Industrial Revolution ended all possibility of an ordinary person acquiring productive assets. My Italian great grandfather, for example, initially worked in the deep coal mines in which the pay was terrible and the conditions worse. Nevertheless, he accumulated enough to buy a small farm on time. His “farm specialty” was mules; huge mules, the product of very large jacks and Belgian mares. He sold them into the Deep South to the big agribusinesses there for prices far higher than the local trade would bear. He raised strawberries to ship to the wealthy and middle classes in the cities as well. Shortly before his death, he was able to give a small farm to each of his sons. To his daughters he gave his cash.

How did he do that? Well, as my grandfather told it by way of example, he ate a lot of polenta while he was working in the mines, and not much more. In short, he lived below his means.

My own grandfather, his son, went broke in the Great Depression. Lost his farm. Rented five acres from someone and raised strawberries, which he shipped to the cities. Sold as many as he could raise. No end to that market, he found. Bought junk land, timbered it and raised more. Built his own house out of his own timber. Sent both of his daughters to college though he never got out of the third grade himself.

In Chesterton’s and Belloc’s England was that possible? Well, if you read the literature of the time, it really doesn’t seem so.

And I’m not sure it’s a lot more true in Europe now, either.

In discussions like this, I’m often brought to mind of the young fellows (and occasional girl) who work in the feed mill I patronize. They don’t make much, and the work is strenuous. But they also haunt the country livestock auctions at night, buying bottle calves to raise on rented land. Eventually, they’ll do well. I have to admire one young woman there who saved her money to buy a used tractor, then a mower, tedder and baler. She “moonlights” doing custom farm work. Maintains her own equipment.

It’s possible. Not easy a good part of the time, but possible.

Distributism didn’t “fail”. Capitalism, in fact, is the soil in which it can grow.

 

[sallybutler]

The law exists to protect our personal property and insure that NO ONE taketh it away.

(Possession is nine-tenths of the law)

However, the state says what you can or cannot own. The first part is just as important as the second part.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

However, the state says what you can or cannot own. The first part is just as important as the second part.

When the state tells you what you can or cannot own…you are living in a totalitarian state.

The source of the state’s authority is** “the consent of the governed.”** This means that the state is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the state as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

If your state tells you what you can or cannot own…it is time for a new “state”…or if you delegated too much power to your state…you have to live with it.

If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—Tah-dah…CAPITALISM

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

One needs to realize that Belloc (Chesterton too) lived in the early 20th Century. I’m no economist,

Neither was Belloc or Chesterton.

Belloc was known as a writer, orator, poet, sailor, satirist, man of letters, soldier. political activist and defender fo the Catholic faith.

His most lasting legacy is probably his verse, which encompasses comic verses for children and religious poetry. Among his best-remembered poems are from his humorous Cautionary Tales for Children, including “Jim, who ran away from his nurse, and was eaten by a lion” and “Matilda, who told lies and was burnt to death”.

Chesterton was a lay theologian, poet, philosopher, dramatist, journalist, orator, literary and art critic, biographer, and Christian apologist.
Chesterton is well known for his fictional priest-detective Father Brown.

Neither of these men had any inkling of economics.

I like “use it or lose it” as an economic policy myself. I have no problem with rewarding the entrepreneur even to what some might think of as obscene levels, so long as it’s a truly productive enterprise he’s engaging in. **But he has to be made to realize **that the effort must be sustained. He cannot, like Faust, be able to declare to the moment “stay, you are so beautiful”.

Hmmm. I don’t like that idea at all!

Any Free Market entrepreneur will be rewarded if he engages in a truly productive enterprise. When he is “made to realize” or made to do anything…he is not engaged in a Free Market.

 

[sallybutler]

When the state tells you what you can or cannot own…you are living in a totalitarian state.

The source of the state’s authority is** “the consent of the governed.”** This means that the state is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the state as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

If your state tells you what you can or cannot own…it is time for a new “state”…or if you delegated too much power to your state…you have to live with it.

If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man’s individual rights; if one upholds man’s individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights—Tah-dah…CAPITALISM

Then, based on your definition, the U.S. is a totalitarian state. For example, in California, you can not own the beach on the coast of the Pacific. You are not allowed to own a nuclear bomb. You can’t own the airspace above your house. You can’t own your spouse. There are also regulations about what you can do with what you do own. You are not allowed to grow certain plants (poppies and marijuana come to mind). You are not allowed to build a dam on a river going through you property.

You may say these are silly examples. But the U.S. and it’s states have put limits on what anyone can own. Taxes are collected (from rich and poor) in order to provide benefits to others (both rich and poor). Every known government has done this. I will go out on a limb and say every future government invented by man will also do this.

 

[Paleocon]

Depends on what you mean by “good”
Freedom of choice ranks pretty high up there. In fact Freedom, any freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

If that’s what you mean by freedom, then I’m certainly glad I don’t live in a free society. Such a society, where there would be no authority to protect one form murderers and robbers, would be awful.

So he is not defending distributism…???

Aquinas wouldn’t have felt the need to defend the economic system of his day.

“…provided that it have the common good in mind.”

But to give it to another is theft.

Explain.

The source of the state’s authority is** “the consent of the governed.”** This means that the state is not the ruler

False. Contrary to the Catholic Magesterium.

Leo XIII “Diuturnum Illud”

“Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in society do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.”

Liberalism has clouded your thoughts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Neither was Belloc or Chesterton.

Belloc was known as a writer, orator, poet, sailor, satirist, man of letters, soldier. political activist and defender fo the Catholic faith.

His most lasting legacy is probably his verse, which encompasses comic verses for children and religious poetry. Among his best-remembered poems are from his humorous Cautionary Tales for Children, including “Jim, who ran away from his nurse, and was eaten by a lion” and “Matilda, who told lies and was burnt to death”.

Chesterton was a lay theologian, poet, philosopher, dramatist, journalist, orator, literary and art critic, biographer, and Christian apologist.
Chesterton is well known for his fictional priest-detective Father Brown.

Neither of these men had any inkling of economics.

Hmmm. I don’t like that idea at all!

Any Free Market entrepreneur will be rewarded if he engages in a truly productive enterprise. When he is “made to realize” or made to do anything…he is not engaged in a Free Market.

Possibly I’m insufficiently impressed with titles like “economist”.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a clergyman, theologian and philosopher, yet he made contributions to economic thought, the wisdom of which are being recognized to this day.

And are we to think Keynes or perhaps Larry Summers to be wiser than Chesterton or Belloc? Upon what are we to base that conclusion? Being right? And certainly, Marx was considered an “economist” by many, though he was wrong in almost everything.

We are all “made to do” lots of things, including to die. All entrepreneurs other than criminals are “made to do” a great deal if they are to succeed. There are lots of potential economic evils from which people ought to be “made to do” otherwise. Every banana republic suffers from the fact that those who own everything are not “made to do” anything other than perhaps extract money from the peons to pay the dictator.

 

[Maria_Monte]

Neither was Belloc or Chesterton.

Chesterton was a lay theologian, poet, philosopher, dramatist, journalist, orator, literary and art critic, biographer, and Christian apologist.
Chesterton is well known for his fictional priest-detective Father Brown.

Neither of these men had any inkling of economics.

Actually, Chesterton was probably the greatest thinker of the 20th century. I very much doubt he had no “inkling of economics”. As for being well-known, for some reason Chesterton has not received the credit he is due. He was still probably the greatest thinker of the 20th century.

 

[manualman]

Actually, Chesterton was probably the greatest thinker of the 20th century. I very much doubt he had no “inkling of economics”.

But he disagrees with Zoltan. Therefore he is ignorant. How do you even argue with people like that? I give up.

But for the record, I’m not remotely persuaded that the state has no business setting up legal structures that systematically work against exploitation of the weak by the strong. And I reject the assertion that any such attempts are necessarily tyranny. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want, it is the ability to do what is good and in accordance with our nature as humans. Exploitation is neither of those things, so restricting it is no imposition on freedom.

 

[Joe_Ca]

Thus sayeth the Rob. But with no supporting information or argument. Just bald assertion. That might fly on the Rush Limbaugh show, but it doesn’t fly with me.

But you’ve made it clear nothing will fly with you that you disagree with.

I’m simply proposing that we alter our legal and tax structures to stop with the ridiculous notion that the hero of economic prosperity is the investor and start building structures that favor the entrepreneur, the inventor and the hard worker …

You have just listed three of the various kinds of investors.

… rather than the guy who started with lots of money and merely invested it in the hard work of others, only to reap the majority of the profit at the end and pay less taxes on it than the guy who actually did the work.

So, you’re not a distributist, you’re a socialist under a new name.

.