Interesting debate on Distributism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, I have watched most of the debate and in general found it rather disappointing. Jay Richards did a rather good job defending a free-enterprise capitalist system, while acknowledging its obvious faults. But I thought that Joseph Pearce was disappointing with regards to defending Distributism. He did a good job at the beginning, defining what he called applied distributism. He did a good job making clear he was not advocating for a increase government, and that distributism should go along with small government. But he kept using the same example over and over again, some craft beer makers in the UK. It lost its effectiveness quite fast.

The most disappointing part of the debate was when Fr. Sirico asked about using government to keep things small. This was never addressed adequately on either side. Pearce just said that he did not support that. And Richards pointed out the obvious problem with doing so, but did not address the issue of companies growing ever larger and larger. Both sides had an issue to discuss here, neither person wanted to. It was very disappointing.

Overall, a weak discussion on distributionism.
 
I do not know if it will or not. I will point out that what we have today cannot be thought of as a better solution. Companies get larger and larger, and do not resist regulation. They just want regulation to protect their large enterprise, they drive the regulation such that it presents a barrier to entry from small competitors.
Belloc said that socialism and capitalism were two sides of the same coin: one is everything controlled by a few people in government, the other is everything controlled by a few people in industry. He had a point. I would present a more US centric and modern corollary to Belloc statement::
Democrats have never seen a concentration of power in the government they do not like, republicans have never seen a concentration of power in business they do not like,
Both approaches completely abandon any notion of subsidiarity. Both approaches limit a widespread, ownership based society.
 
tafan2 said:
I do not know if it will or not. I will point out that what we have today cannot be thought of as a better solution. Companies get larger and larger, and do not resist regulation. They just want regulation to protect their large enterprise, they drive the regulation such that it presents a barrier to entry from small competitors.
Click to expand...
The match is long over
Capitalism performed a KO on Socialism
People are thriving, living longer and healthier because of capitalism
 
I would say because of a free enterprise system. I am not saying Belloc was necessarily right. But he had a point worth considering. And today, we cannot say that the giganticism that has taken over capitalism.is a good thing.
 
Socrates92 said:
This is a misconception based on the faulty methodology of comparing income quartiles across time instead of the incomes of the actual people originating in those quartiles
Click to expand...
Standard of Living… is the perception…
 
Standard of Living = Wages/Cost of Living…

My folks made way way less than today’s averaged wages…
Virtually No one went into Edu-Debt
Most all Jobs gave Med and Pension Bennies
SS Bennies
Job Opportunites abounded.
Taxes? No biggie
Most all who had houses or rented - remained.
Including Lower Class. .

TODAY? Fahgheddaboutit …

Kids w/no jobs are deep in Edu-Debt
Many Middle Class are forced to move… for ‘retirement’
_
 
I do not preach Distributism, I am just interested to read more opinions.
I am from the peasants (farmers) country, where people do not know the culture of poverty because they work
 
Last edited:
Here, there are my personal thoughts on Distributism. More questions than answers.

 
You know, I work at night time as a bike taxi driver.
I need income.
Life in a big Western city is very expensive.
Especially accommodation.
Some customers preffer to treat us disrespectfully.
They do not avaluate my expenses. I rent bike taxi, I rent extra battery.
I pay taxes and high bills.
So, the worst thing in this social benefits searchers is when they do not respect your work, value, esteem, expenses.
In this life we must pay for every thing, and some people only look to use others.
 
The protection of mothers, the protection of families, the protection of invalid kids, these are sacral matters for society.
But when I hear the stories as in my country-Ukraine, that money go for the army and they cut the benefits from mothers, and most defenceless people of society that some thing unnatural for me, because I know that ollegarchy lives like a country in a country, they live on totally different planet, and even the war is a profit for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top