Distributism and the welfare state

[Ridgerunner]

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

The “Labor Theory of Value” is a crock that has long been discredited except among the hard core leftists and people who just don’t know.

It’s interesting to think about the fact that the relationship between labor’s share of national income and capital’s share is almost always the same. Labor’s share is about double that of capital, and has been since 1929 when the government first started keeping track.

It does change a little, but not much. Labor’s share is highest during periods of high employment, lowest when unemployment is high. Otherwise, both move up and down together in monetary terms. But again, the relationship itself changes very little.

There are good reasons why all of that is so. In a modern economy, it takes a lot to so completely change the (name removed by moderator)ut in terms of machinery, energy, working capital, intellectual property, either up or down. We think the changes are bigger than they are, only because we see some labor saving technological breakthrough here or there. But on the whole, changes are pretty small and, in any event, technological breakthrough generally requires a higher labor skill level and therefore higher wages in that sector.

Disturbingly, though, government transfer payments come entirely from labor’s share of national income. There are reasons for that too. So the more transfer payments the government mandates, the smaller is working labor’s share of national income.

But the notion that “labor” determines “value” is discredited.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Then, based on your definition, the U.S. is a totalitarian state.

Not yet…but it’s getting there.

For example, in California, you can not own the beach on the coast of the Pacific.

But one DOES own the beach down to the “high water line”. Allowing public access on one’s property is a gross violation of private property rights and is wrong.

You are not allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

That is a law covering all explosive devices. Of course contractors, builders and individuals can own and used all sorts of explosive devices with the proper permits.

You can’t own the airspace above your house.

But you do.

You can’t own your spouse.

Of course not…that’s slavery. But who would want to???

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.

But, again, you can grow marijuana and you can build dams.

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.

No Sally, they are not silly examples…just not the best examples. Remember there is a difference between “ownership” of private property and “property rights.”

Taxes taken from the rich and given to the poor only benefit the poor.

Every government that does this without authorization is stealing.

I cannot find any article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

On the California coast, you OWN your beach. It is the California Coastal Commission (environmental wackos) that violates your property rights by creating regulations that provide access to beaches across private property.

In Malibu:

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

I agree! That is the reason we establish governments.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the army, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

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

That was Feudalism…right?

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
“…provided that it have the common good in mind.”

But to give it to another is theft.

Explain.

A legitimate government will collect taxes and provide for the common good equally. Also it will provide any services authorized by those who established it.

When a government collects taxes (by force…,is there any other way?) and provides services or benevolence only to certain individuals or groups without authorization…that is theft.

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.

No it is not false and your quote does not seem to have anything to do with Catholic teaching.

"Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.”

“The sentiment of Catholics”…is hardly a direction from the Magisterium.

We might ask the question: What government did God ever establish?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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?

I suppose you would allow Aquinas, Chesterton or Belloc to remove your appendix simply because they are wise?

When it comes to economics I will take the thoughts of Keynes (even though he is a fool)
over the “economic ideology” of poets.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

I am a thinker too.

I would have liked very much to meet Chesterton and maybe do a little “thinking” together. Then we could decide who was really the greatest thinker of the 20th century.

 

[Paleocon]

No it is not false and your quote does not seem to have anything to do with Catholic teaching.

"Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.”

“The sentiment of Catholics”…is hardly a direction from the Magisterium.

We might ask the question: What government did God ever establish?

If you wish to ignore Papal teaching that’s your problem.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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

Don’t give up…Zoltan hates a quitter.

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.

It is true…the state has an obligation to protect the weak (and strong alike)…its called the rule of law. It is far from tyranny. It is the purpose of the state.

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide us with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the army, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

I think that’s an excessive statement of it, and don’t think the Founders thought of it that way, since they countenanced the adoption of the Common Law of England as it was at the founding. There were a lot of “dos” and “donts” in it, among them being Sovereign Immunity, which fits into none of the categories you mentioned. There was a lot more regulation of property and contracts than simply to “protect” property and to protect contracts from breach or fraud.

But I realize your overstatement is not intended as a treatise on what the law did or doesn’t do. Rather, it’s your statement of opinion that it is not a proper function of government to provide for the poor. Such provisions are actually older than the country is, and nobody questioned their propriety particularly. Even (in England, of course) Ebenezer Scrooge didn’t entirely. Doubtedless he had counterparts here and there in this country from the beginning, but they’re not as well known. To find a real example of “no aid to the poor”, one would almost have to look at the Soviet Union before the NEP.

And you actually can’t dam rivers at will, and for the most part never could even before the EPA and the Corps of Engineers basically took control of every puddle and dry wash. Look up “Riparian Rights” and the doctrine of “Prior Appropriation” and you’ll see.

 

[TARRAT]

You might want to read this.

catholic.com/blog/devin-rose/there-and-back-again-a-catholic-homesteaders-tale

 

[Ridgerunner]

I suppose you would allow Aquinas, Chesterton or Belloc to remove your appendix simply because they are wise?

When it comes to economics I will take the thoughts of Keynes (even though he is a fool)
over the “economic ideology” of poets.

Nor would I allow an economist to remove my appendix. Nor would I accept the policies of Keynes over the principles of many people of ordinary good sense. Excessive worship of titles and asserted credentials gives us things like utility bills scheduled to “skyrocket” because of the opinions of so-called “climate scientists”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You might want to read this.

catholic.com/blog/devin-rose/there-and-back-again-a-catholic-homesteaders-tale

Kind of amusing. Thank you for this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t give up…Zoltan hates a quitter.

It is true…the state has an obligation to protect the weak (and strong alike)…its called the rule of law. It is far from tyranny. It is the purpose of the state.

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide us with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.

The first sentence is out of line.

The last paragraph does not make sense to me. It is the very nature of government to coerce. That’s why it always has soldiers and police. Even the payment of taxes comes, ultimately, from the barrel of a gun. You don’t pay your taxes, they prosecute you. You resist arrest sufficiently and they will shoot you dead.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If you wish to ignore Papal teaching that’s your problem.

It is not a papal teaching it is a statement about the “sentiment of Catholics”.

As a good Catholic I would never ignore Papal teachings on faith and morals. I become a little dubious when the pope ventures into economics and politics.

However if you could point out that part of “Diuturnum Illud” where the pope says: “we define” or “I define,”…the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle, as dogma." …then of course I will accept it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think that’s an excessive statement of it, and don’t think the Founders thought of it that way, since they countenanced the adoption of the Common Law of England as it was at the founding. There were a lot of “dos” and “donts” in it, among them being Sovereign Immunity, which fits into none of the categories you mentioned. There was a lot more regulation of property and contracts than simply to “protect” property and to protect contracts from breach or fraud.

But I realize your overstatement is not intended as a treatise on what the law did or doesn’t do. Rather, it’s your statement of opinion that it is not a proper function of government to provide for the poor.

Not exactly.

If a government was established with provisions to provide for the poor then it would be a proper function of that government. Our government has no such provisions. Therefore the taking of tax money by the government from one to benefit another is theft.

Such provisions are actually older than the country is, and nobody questioned their propriety particularly.

I’m sure you mean private charity.

And you actually can’t dam rivers at will, and for the most part never could even before the EPA and the Corps of Engineers basically took control of every puddle and dry wash. Look up “Riparian Rights” and the doctrine of “Prior Appropriation” and you’ll see.

I built a dam on my property. All I needed was a reason and a permit.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Nor would I allow an economist to remove my appendix. Nor would I accept the policies of Keynes over the principles of many people of ordinary good sense. Excessive worship of titles and asserted credentials gives us things like utility bills scheduled to “skyrocket” because of the opinions of so-called “climate scientists”.

Can’t really argue that…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The first sentence is out of line.

Oh lighten up…

Manualman and I have going on at each other for quite some time. I have more respect for him than most folks who agree with me.

The last paragraph does not make sense to me. It is the very nature of government to coerce. That’s why it always has soldiers and police.** Even the payment of taxes comes, ultimately, from the barrel of a gun. You don’t pay your taxes, they prosecute you. You resist arrest sufficiently and they will shoot you dead**.

It must make sense to you because your comments are spot on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I built a dam on my property. All I needed was a reason and a permit.

In other words, you were not “free to do it”. You had to have the permission of the state.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sure you mean private charity.

No. The colonies, later the states, inherited the English “Poor Laws” which provided public support for the poor. Not very generous, of course, but still public support.
socialwelfarehistory.com/programs/poor-relief-early-amer/

 

[Ridgerunner]

Expanding on this business of “being free” to build a dam. Most of the states inherited what’s called “Riparian law” from England. Basically, under that, one can do what he wants with the waters flowing through his land so long as he doesn’t endanger or damage those downstream in some way. Riparian law assumes waters are inexhaustible, so any riparian (stream bank) owner can use as much as he wants for whatever he wants.

Personally, it is my belief that people should be able to build dams, so long as they don’t endanger or deprive the downstreamers by doing it. Seems to me the laws regarding nuisance or damages ought to be sufficient. As I understand it, on October 20 a new EPA regulation goes into effect giving the Corps of Engineers total control of essentially all the waters in the U.S. That even includes wet weather streams, ponds and dry washes. Nobody will be able to do anything at all without a permit from the Corps.

It is my belief that ultimately the EPA will declare watering stock from streams or even catchments prohibited, forcing livestock raisers to water stock from wells alone. In areas like mine, (Ozarks) where there are deep limestone karst formations full of water, and four feet of rain/year to keep them filled, that’s not so bad, though wells are expensive. But to my great surprise, I recently learned there are only five or six places in the whole world like this, and lots of places where surface water IS the water supply.

And truthfully, I think farmers and ranchers are, by and large, better stewards of the land than is the government.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

No. The colonies, later the states, inherited the English “Poor Laws” which provided public support for the poor. Not very generous, of course, but still public support.
socialwelfarehistory.com/programs/poor-relief-early-amer/

But when the colonies became the United States, the “Poor Laws” were not included in the Constitution. I wonder why?