Distributism: What is it?

[Katholish]

And just where in the Christian faith do you find it taught that wealth is a good thing?

Wealth can certainly be a hinderance to a person’s spiritual progress, but is certainly not in and of itself a bad thing. Like all created goods (and especially since wealth represents most created goods), its appropriate use brings us closer to God, and its misuse brings us further from Him.

Particularly from the aspect of civil society, however, wealth is a very important thing for the security of the state and the prosperity of its citizens. You would have a difficult time arguing wealth is not a good thing.

There is, after all, a difference between wealth and gluttony.

But I am strongly suspicious of the way you and many other people speak of “the market” as if it were an autonomous mechanism with a kind of life of its own, which can be trusted to come up with good results if we just place our faith in it. I believe that this way of thinking derives from Adam Smith?

All that the free market does is establish the most efficient way to produce and distribute limited goods and services. This is the extent to which it can be trusted, but people should never consider the free market more than what it is. It will not produce a morally good society, for instance. In and of itself, it is indifferent to morality. It is a tool. I am not proposing that a society allows people to do whatever they want and asusme the free market will produce some sort of self-regulation. There is certainly a need for government, but one must understand that all things being equal, government involvement in the economy is cause inefficiency.

Encouraged by whom? Is it really exactly the same kind of market manipulation?

By distributists. I do think it is the same kind of market manipulation that distributism promotes. The goal of Obama and democrats over the past couple decades is to ensure a “more equitable distribution of the means of production”. I don’t think any of them would dispute that this is their goal. People call them socialists, but frankly what they are doing in promoting private property, so it is hard to see them as true socialists. In mandating more people be given the chance to buy their own house, they created an artificial demand (which raises prices in the housing market), and eventually people discover this demand was aritificial and that people cannot pay the morgages for the houses they bought, then the prices coming falling down as demand goes down. This directly led to the collapse of the lenders and our current crisis.

I’m more interested in trying to change society from the bottom up by finding ways of living out distributist ideals within the existing system.

Which is the approach most people who like to consider themselves distributists take. In so far as distributist “ideals” stay ideals and do not take the form of an economic system, I am all for it–but then I wouldn’t really call it distributism anymore.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

my answer to your earlier question then, is that enforcing a law that criminalizes adultery would cause more harm to society because of how the law would be enforced than the good it would bring.

I disagree with this (the bolded section) if it were to occur in an actual Catholic society.

Adultery would be treated exactly like theft, as it IS theft in a Catholic society.

 

[Wirraway]

I disagree with this (the bolded section) if it were to occur in an actual Catholic society.

… “enforcing a law that criminalizes adultery would cause more harm to society because of how the law would be enforced than the good it would bring.”] …

Adultery would be treated exactly like theft, as it IS theft in a Catholic society.

I see your point. however, are you prepared to accept the usual police methods to gather evidence to support the prosecutor’s case? we assume a search warrant is obtained after demonstrating probable cause that adultery is happening.

in return for leniency on a petty theft charge, a neighbor snitches off the adulterous couple. are you ready to accept that?

are you prepared to accept shotgun mics aimed at a bedroom?

or telescopes? or infra-red scopes? or night vision goggles all to peer inside someone’s bedroom?

or a wireless mic planted under a mattress?

all to prosecute adultery?

you better pray that no one with a grudge makes up a false claim against you.

that is NOT the kind of society, catholic or otherwise, I want to live in.

 

[manualman]

How did Distributism get sidetracked to Big Brother watching bedrooms? Not relevant to the topic.

Whether an ideal government should include regulation and prosecution of sexual deviancy is not the topic here. This is about economics. Please.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I see your point. however, are you prepared to accept the usual police methods to gather evidence to support the prosecutor’s case? we assume a search warrant is obtained after demonstrating probable cause that adultery is happening.

Since this is entirely conjectural, because there are no “Catholic societies ‘run’ under distributist principles”, I don’t think either of us has to worry about it too much.

But, if we DID in fact live in such a society, you would be perfectly welcomed to LEAVE IT and pursue any adulterous relationships you’d like, while I’d actually LIKE to live in a society which has disincentives to being an adulterer.

On the issue of “trumped up charges of adultery”, why would a Catholic society using distributist principles be any WORSE than what we have now?

I realize that your libertarian-ness sees ANY social constraints as anathema, but as a libertarian you wouldn’t be comfortable anyway in a truly Catholic society, and you’d be wise to leave such a society promptly.

that is NOT the kind of society, catholic or otherwise, I want to live in.

I don’t think you’ll have to worry about it! <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>

 

[CatsAndDogs]

How did Distributism get sidetracked to Big Brother watching bedrooms? Not relevant to the topic.

Whether an ideal government should include regulation and prosecution of sexual deviancy is not the topic here. This is about economics. Please.

That’s what happens when a libertarian butts up against even legitimate authority (The Church) in a (conjectural) society based on Catholic and “regulated morality” principles.

How one can be a libertarian and a Catholic at the same time is a continual perplexity to me, actually!

Unless, one is libertarian in everything EXCEPT faith and morals, perhaps? Is that at all possible?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This is about economics. Please.

Actually, it IS also about morality (and faith) because of the basic premises of distributism, which necessitate an underlying Catholic society (where veritably everyone is a Catholic) to function properly.

 

[Jack_245814]

I think its high time (practicing) Catholics stopped aligning themselves with the conservative right. We are not liberal, and we are not conservatives.

Please remember capitalism in thr 18th century developed AGAINST the traditional guild and feudal systems that were left over from the middle ages- protestants like Adam Smith worked to overturn traditional “restrictions” in favor of a dog-eat-dog market and this irrational belief in the “invisible hand”.

Oh yeah, I guess the invisible hand is just taking a while to manifest itself these days. It’s about time we stop worshipping man-made ideologies like Capitalism (and Communism and all the other “isms” that were developed as Modern alternatives to the Catholic Faith) and try to inject some traditional wisdom back into the equation. I think distributivism sounds wonderful.

True post-modernity is tradition.

It really depends on how you define “conservative” and “liberal”. They’re extremely vague terms. However, many trends in Catholic Social Teaching seem to lend themselves towards what is called “paleoconservatism” and “traditionalist conservatism” (too interrelated but separate schools).

A mainstream conservative (“neoconservative”) is likely to be a libertarian when it comes to economic policy, but paleoconservatives are not defined by a support of capitalism - though some certainly do support it. It’s more defined by a preservation of “the permanent things” - tradition, morality, etc. The paleocons are far less associated with libertarianism than the neocons.

A paleocon is far less likely to oppose welfare on principle. He is likely to oppose a federal welfare system, but it’s also not uncommon for a paleocon to support welfare programs on a local level - the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Likewise, a paleocon is likely to oppose the War on Drugs but probably does not think that drugs should be legalized - just that a War on Drugs waged by the fed is a waste of resources, among other things. Some paleocons are also distributists, etc. etc. As a political wing it has a disproportionate number of Catholics amongst its ranks - which is not to say that it’s “the Catholic way” or anything.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that most Catholic teachings are conservative, just not necessarily representative of the newest manifestation of conservatism. Just like being a Liberal meant, at one time, being a rabid supporter of the free-market, whereas now it often means being a rabid regulator of it.

Unless, one is libertarian in everything EXCEPT faith and morals, perhaps? Is that at all possible?
Reply With Quote

Depends on which school of libertarianism you’re talking about. Reason Magazine-style libertarianism (“left libertarianism”) is heavily associated with hedonism and libertinism, but “right-libertarianism” isn’t.

<sorry for ranting I just really like chattin’ politics>

As for distributism . . . I don’t know what I think of it. Some thinkers I very much respect support it, and some oppose it. I think one good argument against it is that if the state takes the means of production and distributes them equally amongst the populace, who’s to say the state, given so much power, wouldn’t simply become a horrible tyranny? That just seems like a dangerous amount of power to hand over to a government, but I might be wrong.

I’m more of a “decentralist” - I think the vast majority of governmental functions should be reserved for the smallest units of political power. I think this causes government programs to be more efficient, corruption to be more transparent, and lessens the chance of war. It also allows communities the opportunity to try distributism if they want to without having to fight to force it on an entire state or nation, and if such a system works then surrounding communities would also likely adopt it.

Probably just a pie-in-the-sky dream, just where I am right now.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I think one good argument against it is that if the state takes the means of production and distributes them equally amongst the populace, who’s to say the state, given so much power, wouldn’t simply become a horrible tyranny? That just seems like a dangerous amount of power to hand over to a government, but I might be wrong.

An actual distributist society MUST be embedded in a thoroughly, and rather devoutly, Catholic populace.

Such a society CAN’T become tyrannical, because it’s moral activity (behaviors) would be regulated by the authority of the Church.

The “near impossibility” of a large group of people in a concentrated area (a country) actually BEING “devoutly Catholic” is why I consider distributism to be a utopian dream.

I’m more of a “decentralist” - I think the vast majority of governmental functions should be reserved for the smallest units of political power. I think this causes government programs to be more efficient, corruption to be more transparent, and lessens the chance of war. It also allows communities the opportunity to try distributism if they want to without having to fight to force it on an entire state or nation, and if such a system works then surrounding communities would also likely adopt it.

Probably just a pie-in-the-sky dream, just where I am right now.

Do you see how a distributist society MUST be embedded in a very Catholic population?

What do you suppose would happen if distributism were divorced from it’s (seemingly necessary) Catholic environment?

 

[Wirraway]

…
But, if we DID in fact live in such a society, you would be perfectly welcomed to LEAVE IT and pursue any adulterous relationships you’d like,

I’m a happily married man, Sir, and that comment was not necessary at all.

… while I’d actually LIKE to live in a society which has disincentives to being an adulterer.

that’s the answer then, you’d accept that level of police intrusion to prosecute and deter adultery. why not just say so without the rude innuendo?

…I realize that your libertarian-ness sees ANY social constraints as anathema,…>

another strawman. par for this forum. that basically kills this discussion.

 

[Wirraway]

How did Distributism get sidetracked to Big Brother watching bedrooms? Not relevant to the topic.

Whether an ideal government should include regulation and prosecution of sexual deviancy is not the topic here. This is about economics. Please.

we were discussing the implications of that kind of economic system.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
…
But, if we DID in fact live in such a society, you would be perfectly welcomed to LEAVE IT and pursue any adulterous relationships you’d like,

I’m a happily married man, Sir, and that comment was not necessary at all.

I’m very happy for you. My point was that those who fear a “Catholic culture” which has legal capability to disincentivize adultery would be more than happily welcomed to leave it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
… while I’d actually LIKE to live in a society which has disincentives to being an adulterer.

that’s the answer then, you’d accept that level of police intrusion to prosecute and deter adultery. why not just say so without the rude innuendo?

If I were living in a thoroughly Catholic society, I would EXPECT adultery to be treated as the crime it would be in that culture.

I wasn’t being rude. I was being clear that those who don’t like Catholic morals would most likely leave such a society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
…I realize that your libertarian-ness sees ANY social constraints as anathema,…>

another strawman. par for this forum. that basically kills this discussion.

I was HOPING you’d say that you were finished! Thank you so much!

For someone to claim that it’s evil for a society to enforce it’s moral laws based on it’s own morals is to OBVIOUSLY not agree with those moral values.

Now, you say you’re Catholic in your profile, yet don’t seem to agree with the moral values of the Church, which would be implemented in our conjectural “distributist society”. Why, and/or how is that?

I’d actually prefer if you DIDN’T answer that question, as I don’t much like your “attitude”. </me being only SLIGHTLY sarcastic>

 

[Wirraway]

I’m very happy for you. My point was that those who fear a “Catholic culture” which has legal capability to disincentivize adultery would be more than happily welcomed to leave it.

If I were living in a thoroughly Catholic society, I would EXPECT adultery to be treated as the crime it would be in that culture.

I wasn’t being rude. I was being clear that those who don’t like Catholic morals would most likely leave such a society.

I was HOPING you’d say that you were finished! Thank you so much!

For someone to claim that it’s evil for a society to enforce it’s moral laws based on it’s own morals is to OBVIOUSLY not agree with those moral values.

Now, you say you’re Catholic in your profile, yet don’t seem to agree with the moral values of the Church, which would be implemented in our conjectural “distributist society”. Why, and/or how is that?

I’d actually prefer if you DIDN’T answer that question, as I don’t much like your “attitude”. </me being only SLIGHTLY sarcastic>

in that CASE this is a fun conversation, now that I know not to take you seriously …

I don’t agree with your moral values, which, as reflected in your defense of distributorism, are, frankly, naive if not OUTRIGHT preposterous and certainly not even remotely catholic. your fantasy WORLD where the government actively “disincentivizes”, investigates and prosecutes adultery is beyond ridiculous. I’m only being SLIGHTLY sarcastic too.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

in that CASE this is a fun conversation, now that I know not to take you seriously …

I don’t agree with your moral values, which, as reflected in your defense of distributorism, are, frankly, naive if not OUTRIGHT preposterous and certainly not even remotely catholic. your fantasy WORLD where the government actively “disincentivizes”, investigates and prosecutes adultery is beyond ridiculous. I’m only being SLIGHTLY sarcastic too.

If our moral values are Catholic, then we agree on them.

If you don’t agree with me as to our comparative moral values, then your moral values aren’t Catholic.

What you seem to refuse to see is that a distributist (and it’s not based on “distributorism” but rather “distributism”) society would need to have a distributist government which necessitates a thoroughly Catholic population.

In such a society, with it’s Catholic distributist government, adultery (as well as all the other crimes based on Catholic morality) would be a punishable crime, and dealt with however that “fantasy” government would enforce such crimes.

It’s only been VERY recently in our society (western european based countries) that adultery HASN’T been a punishable crime!

Sorry for having to inform you of the truth, but, hey, that’s my job!

 

[Wirraway]

If our moral values are Catholic, then we agree on them.

If you don’t agree with me as to our comparative moral values, then your moral values aren’t Catholic.

What you seem to refuse to see is that a distributist (and it’s not based on “distributorism” but rather “distributism”) society would need to have a distributist government which necessitates a thoroughly Catholic population.
In such a society, with it’s Catholic distributist government, adultery (as well as all the other crimes based on Catholic morality) would be a punishable crime, and dealt with however that “fantasy” government would enforce such crimes.

It’s only been VERY recently in our society (western european based countries) that adultery HASN’T been a punishable crime!

Sorry for having to inform you of the truth, but, hey, that’s my job!

and I look forward to my daily schooling of you too, it is a grave responsibility I have taken on.

a distributionist Catholic government would enact that specific law and enforce it in those specific ways that cannot be reconciled to modern expectations – including, I submit, american Catholic expectations – of limited police powers and of privacy. you’d depopulate your Catholic state not because we all want to commit adultery with impunity, but because of the Big Brother atmosphere. sure, it might be fun to imagine a state where no dare commit adultery (or, if you look elsewhere on this forum, passionate kissing or even dating), but after a while, maybe about a week, the oppression needed to maintain a thoroughly Catholic state would be intolerable.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

and I look forward to my daily schooling of you too, it is a grave responsibility I have taken on.

a distributionist Catholic government would enact that specific law and enforce it in those specific ways that cannot be reconciled to modern expectations – including, I submit, american Catholic expectations – of limited police powers and of privacy.

Which is precisely why I think such a society will never happen!

you’d depopulate your Catholic state not because we all want to commit adultery with impunity, but because of the Big Brother atmosphere. sure, it might be fun to imagine a state where no dare commit adultery (or, if you look elsewhere on this forum, passionate kissing or even dating), but after a while, maybe about a week, the oppression needed to maintain a thoroughly Catholic state would be intolerable.

Firstly, an actual Catholic society would not be a theocracy, as only a temporal power (government) can use coercive power (force). The Church’s role in this society would be solely that of advising the temporal power as to what is moral/ethical and what is not.

Your “libertarian paranoia” is justified if a libertarian were to live in such a society, and the “exit” of such a person from that society would be dandy, as far as the truly Catholic population of said society is concerned.

But, since such a society is essentially impossible, we’re arguing hypotheticals in a vacuum. <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>

 

[Jack_245814]

An actual distributist society MUST be embedded in a thoroughly, and rather devoutly, Catholic populace.

Such a society CAN’T become tyrannical, because it’s moral activity (behaviors) would be regulated by the authority of the Church.

The “near impossibility” of a large group of people in a concentrated area (a country) actually BEING “devoutly Catholic” is why I consider distributism to be a utopian dream.

Yes that seems to make distributism seem a very weak idea indeed. I’m not sure if you’re statements are accurate or not, but you’ll never be able to create a society of good, moral Catholics. Maybe a society of church-going rosary-saying Catholics, but there’s no guarantee that somebody won’t screw the whole system up at some point. Morality is a fragile thing.

I’m just generally suspicious of ideology - it usually leads to bloodshed. I don’t think there’s “one system” that will just “work” even if it might require some “communist-style power”. Let alone a system that requires everyone to be “devout Catholics”. It just seems kind of ridiculous to me, with all due respect to distributists: maybe you guys can explain your views a little better to me.

And the whole “usuro” thing . . . I just don’t get it. Lending is necessary for any economy above subsistence levels to exist: that’s exactly what investment is. Why would greedy, sinful humans want to lend to eachother if there wasn’t anything in it for them? Any decent political theory must take human nature into account.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Any books (from a Catholic perspective) other than Chesterton, Belloc, and Day on this subject.

 

[manualman]

1. Yes that seems to make distributism seem a very weak idea indeed. I’m not sure if you’re statements are accurate or not, but you’ll never be able to create a society of good, moral Catholics. Maybe a society of church-going rosary-saying Catholics, but there’s no guarantee that somebody won’t screw the whole system up at some point. Morality is a fragile thing.
2. I’m just generally suspicious of ideology - it usually leads to bloodshed…
3. And the whole “usuro” thing . . . I just don’t get it. Lending is necessary for any economy above subsistence levels to exist: that’s exactly what investment is. Why would greedy, sinful humans want to lend to eachother if there wasn’t anything in it for them? Any decent political theory must take human nature into account.

1. I don’t know why these other guys here are trying to equate distributsim with theocracy. They do NOT have to be the same.

Economic theories in which the government has the DIRECT power to seize property and distribute it to the poor are always doomed because that very power will always attract the corrupt who will exploit it for their own gain. History is littered with examples.

Capitalism unrestrained will likewise always result in wealth being concentrated in the ‘investor class’ faster than it is created through the value added processes present in the economy. (See any current newspaper)

Distributism is NOT another word for socialism. It is not a seizure of property from the rich and distribution amongst the poor. Instead it is a philosophy of government in which tax and law policy offsets the tendency of free markets to concentrate wealth faster than it is created. For example, a very high death tax and elimination of trust fund tax shelters would be a great Distributist policy. Dead men own nothing, therefore it is a legitimate thing for the government to tax inheritance heavily. Some call this a death tax. Nonsense, dead men own nothing and therefore can’t be taxed. Objections are just feeble attempts at an economic substitute for immortality.

Similarly, investment income could be taxed at a higher rate than wages are. Why in the world should a guy punching the clock pay a higher percentage of his wages than a guy has excess money to invest? (And btw, this applies to me too since I put 10% into my stock heavy 401k and will eventually live off the proceeds)

Are these the best examples? Probably not. But you get the idea. Distributism need not be explicitly catholic. It is just a different form of free markets than exists under capitalism. Instead of presuming that the INVESTOR is the one to favor to maximize economic growth, it most heavily favors the entrepenuer and small businessman. Both are crucial to a healthy free market, but capitalism by definition more heavily favors the guy who starts with the CAPITAL.

1. As for usury, be careful with definitions. Usury was originally defined before there was inflation. You have to adjust the definition for the more recent phenomenon of increasing prices and the time cost of money. Those making loans do deserve a reasonable return for the use of their assets (reasonable fixed rate mortgages, for example). However, those who charge extortionate interest to others lacking the personal education and/or discipline to understand how they are being exploited are still usurers (IMO, subprime credit card companies).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Any books (from a Catholic perspective) other than Chesterton, Belloc, and Day on this subject.

google.com/search?q=distributism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

:irish3: