Is Capitalism God-Ordained?

[ThomasJMullally]

Here is the 5th Amendment of our consitution:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So again, they have the priorities straight, the Church does, the Pope does… How can property equal freedom, and be the basis of life? God is the basis off life… When people are displaced for higher economic efficiency, that is freedom? When women postpone children for financial gain, and then are wiped clean by hedge funds manipulating the system, that is freedom? Oh please…

 

[ThomasJMullally]

If you want to contribute, be accurate. It is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But let’s take your version and discuss the right to Property…or Property Rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.

Since we have to sustain our life by our own efforts, those who have no right to the products of their efforts have no means to sustain their lives. The one who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

PS…I am not a libertarian.

Here is the 5th Amendment of our consitution:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So again, they have the priorities straight, the Church does, the Pope does… Today we have it backwards, it is: Property, Liberty, and Life. And people like Paleocon and myself know we can do better…

How can property equal freedom, and be the basis of life? God is the basis of life… When people are displaced for higher economic efficiency, that is freedom? When women postpone children for financial gain, and then are wiped clean by hedge funds manipulating the system, that is freedom? Oh please…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It doesn’t strictly require that. It could simply require business owners to be residents of the locality in which they did business. This would naturally and peacefully lead to a diffusion of large concentrations of assets.

You used the word “require”. I don’t like that word when applied to government/business. Makes me cringe. It congers up ideas of over regulation, government controls and loss of freedom.

Why on Earth is it so important to “diffuse large concentrations of assets”?

No distributist cooperative will ever grow into an Exxon. And if Exxon became a distributist co-op it would go the same route as Fagor Electrodomesticos in less than a year.

 

[Paleocon]

You used the word “require”. I don’t like that word when applied to government/business. Makes me cringe. It congers up ideas of over regulation, government controls and loss of freedom.

Why on Earth is it so important to “diffuse large concentrations of assets”?

No distributist cooperative will ever grow into an Exxon. And if Exxon became a distributist co-op it would go the same route as Fagor Electrodomesticos in less than a year.

That it makes you cringe is irrelevant.

Because diffusing these large concentrations will make more widespread the ownership of property.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

You used the word “require”. I don’t like that word when applied to government/business. Makes me cringe. It congers up ideas of over regulation, government controls and loss of freedom.

Why on Earth is it so important to “diffuse large concentrations of assets”?

No distributist cooperative will ever grow into an Exxon. And if Exxon became a distributist co-op it would go the same route as Fagor Electrodomesticos in less than a year.

ZC, the word is “conjures”… yes “require” is the word denoting a new law. This I tend to disfavor as much as war, but at least someone is thinking of something better, than the remote control of everything… which is what we have.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Here is the 5th Amendment of our consitution:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So again, they have the priorities straight, the Church does, the Pope does… Today we have it backwards, it is: Property, Liberty, and Life. And people like Paleocon and myself know we can do better…

How can property equal freedom, and be the basis of life? God is the basis of life… When people are displaced for higher economic efficiency, that is freedom? When women postpone children for financial gain, and then are wiped clean by hedge funds manipulating the system, that is freedom? Oh please…

OK. I see…

I thought you were originally talking about “rights” (Right to…life, liberty…property etc.)

Here you are talking about the "objects’ themselves. Actual property…stuff… so to speak.
rather than the RIGHT to that property…(?)

Correct me if I am not understanding you.

Since you are talking about “life, liberty, or property” as referenced in the 5th Amendment…I would have to agree with you. People, today are more interested in “stuff”, have no appreciation of Liberty because most of them have never fought for it, and Life has been cheapened by abortion-on-demand.

Property itself does not equal freedom…the RIGHT to property does.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That it makes you cringe is irrelevant.

Because diffusing these large concentrations will make more widespread the ownership of property.

Then we are back to Distributism Problem # 1 :

Taking from one and giving to another. (theft)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

ZC, the word is “conjures”… yes “require” is the word denoting a new law. This I tend to disfavor as much as war, but at least someone is thinking of something better, than the remote control of everything… which is what we have.

Better?

I’m pretty satisfied with what we have now, compared to what is being suggested.

You will have to do a lot of convincing to prove that the “remote control” should be changed.

 

[Paleocon]

Then we are back to Distributism Problem # 1 :

Taking from one and giving to another. (theft)

I didn’t speak of taking. If a ban were placed on conducting a commercial enterprise outside one’s own locality, those who own large amounts of productive property across the country would voluntarily sell said properties to local people.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I didn’t speak of taking. If a ban were placed on conducting a commercial enterprise outside one’s own locality, those who own large amounts of productive property across the country would voluntarily sell said properties to local people.

… and this is different from franchising… how?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I didn’t speak of taking. If a ban were placed on conducting a commercial enterprise outside one’s own locality, those who own large amounts of productive property across the country would voluntarily sell said properties to local people.

Ban?

There’s another word that makes me cringe…

Who, in your utopian distributist society does the banning?

 

[Paleocon]

Ban?

There’s another word that makes me cringe…

Who, in your utopian distributist society does the banning?

The local trade or merchant guild, as the case may be.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

You used the word “require”. I don’t like that word when applied to government/business. Makes me cringe. It congers up ideas of over regulation, government controls and loss of freedom.

Here’s the thing, ZC-- how can a person hate regulations, but wish the police to vociferously work on behalf of property owners? It doesn’t make sense. What we have now is the paramount exercise and defense of property rights, at the expense of more basic human rights.

As distributism would have it, there are things that sometimes need to be defended by communities from buy/sell price mechanisms, from disruptive interference. Disruptive interference is the goal of the new capitalists… there is no real innovation anymore, just a goal to undercut established trades long enough to drive them out of business, or take them over.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Disruptive interference is the goal of the new capitalists… there is no real innovation anymore, just a goal to undercut established trades long enough to drive them out of business, or take them over.

If the established trades were completely pure of inefficiency, they wouldn’t have to worry about being ‘undercut.’

 

[Arandur]

I’ve always been intrigued by Distributism, but really wonder how it’s so much different from true capitalism (market freedom, “natural freedom” as Adam Smith termed it).

It seems that the primary distinguishing feature of Distributism is that individuals should, as much as possible, control the means of production. How is that not possible under “capitalism?”

If people exhibited prudence with regards to their finances and material possessions, it would be easy enough for many people to own the technology required to perform most “knowledge worker” jobs. It is also quite possible for people to be debt free and own all of their own possessions–and then hand them down to the next generation.

To me, the great missed/squandered opportunity of the “American Dream” is rampant materialism driving people to enslave themselves to debt for instant gratification. What we should be doing instead is living free of any consumer debt, building savings, paying off homes, saving for retirement. Then, parents could pass down the family home and land, their vehicles and other possessions, along with their whole retirement assets–which could easily be enough that they could have lived on the interest, which would be a sizeable boost when divided among inheritors.

Also, savings for retirement makes everyone an “owner” of something. I understand that Distributism wants that ownership to be over the actual means of production of the job.

There are some things that economists realize that fall in line with this. For instance, giving employees budgets to cover their own tools often encourages more responsible use and care for those tools.

But then, of course, heavy industry, manufacturing, retail space, office space (because of the value of co-locating office employees) requires such scale that extremely few individuals could afford it. The co-ops required to pay for such things seem to me to distance people from the “means of production” anyway, and thus becomes little different than capitalism–save that people become more tied down, “shackled” to their jobs, less able to change or make adjustments.

I think the real problems come from government. Corporate lobbies gain benefits that favor them over small operators, when if anything it should be the other way around. Regulations and taxes penalize small owners. Removing these obstacles is a political effort that actually is an assault against statism, a drive for the principle of Subsidiarity, and a movement in the direction of true “natural freedom” (market capitalism).

And yes, I agree with Adam Smith in that “natural freedom” is just that–natural, when it is free from government intrusion or other coercion. “Pure capitalism” IS the default human economy, what God has built into nature. We pervert it through government (and other) coercion.

 

[Paleocon]

I’ve always been intrigued by Distributism, but really wonder how it’s so much different from true capitalism (market freedom, “natural freedom” as Adam Smith termed it).

It seems that the primary distinguishing feature of Distributism is that individuals should, as much as possible, control the means of production. How is that not possible under “capitalism?”

If people exhibited prudence with regards to their finances and material possessions, it would be easy enough for many people to own the technology required to perform most “knowledge worker” jobs. It is also quite possible for people to be debt free and own all of their own possessions–and then hand them down to the next generation.

To me, the great missed/squandered opportunity of the “American Dream” is rampant materialism driving people to enslave themselves to debt for instant gratification. What we should be doing instead is living free of any consumer debt, building savings, paying off homes, saving for retirement. Then, parents could pass down the family home and land, their vehicles and other possessions, along with their whole retirement assets–which could easily be enough that they could have lived on the interest, which would be a sizeable boost when divided among inheritors.

Also, savings for retirement makes everyone an “owner” of something. I understand that Distributism wants that ownership to be over the actual means of production of the job.

There are some things that economists realize that fall in line with this. For instance, giving employees budgets to cover their own tools often encourages more responsible use and care for those tools.

But then, of course, heavy industry, manufacturing, retail space, office space (because of the value of co-locating office employees) requires such scale that extremely few individuals could afford it. The co-ops required to pay for such things seem to me to distance people from the “means of production” anyway, and thus becomes little different than capitalism–save that people become more tied down, “shackled” to their jobs, less able to change or make adjustments.

I think the real problems come from government. Corporate lobbies gain benefits that favor them over small operators, when if anything it should be the other way around. Regulations and taxes penalize small owners. Removing these obstacles is a political effort that actually is an assault against statism, a drive for the principle of Subsidiarity, and a movement in the direction of true “natural freedom” (market capitalism).

And yes, I agree with Adam Smith in that “natural freedom” is just that–natural, when it is free from government intrusion or other coercion. “Pure capitalism” IS the default human economy, what God has built into nature. We pervert it through government (and other) coercion.

If Capitalism were the default state of man, it would have arisen sometime before a few hundred years ago.

Distributism requires that the aggregation of huge amounts of wealth be prevented.

 

[Arandur]

If Capitalism were the default state of man, it would have arisen sometime before a few hundred years ago.

It did. It existed and exists throughout most of the world and history, except where imposed upon by government. Think about it: until and unless someone moves in forcefully to take control of land or other “means of production” (kings, governments), those means are privately owned by those who produce them or work with them.

One’s material wealth increases, then, as one uses those means to produce more, to acquire more. This may lead to employing other people who have less, or lending money to them, etc. Moreover, someone’s ability to sell goods depends naturally on other people’s desire and means to acquire them, and (in the absence of coercion or fraud) to then come to a mutually-agreeable exchange of goods and services. Price is determined by those engaged in the exchange (not by outside parties, like government). Ownership is derived from work and private property (not government property or grants/handouts). Any cooperative group that someone joins their resources to is driven privately by its members, and members can withdraw if they desire something else, persuant to their contractual agreements. That’s capitalism. It’s natural.

We may be using different definitions of “capitalism.”

What do you think it is?

Distributism requires that the aggregation of huge amounts of wealth be prevented.

How is that prevented? Who defines “huge amounts?” Why/what is the purpose of doing this?

 

[sallybutler]

As long as any economic system, no matter what it is called, is not God-Oriented, it is hard to imagine it as God-Ordained.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

If the established trades were completely pure of inefficiency, they wouldn’t have to worry about being ‘undercut.’

That is nonsense… look at the promotions of any venture capital firm. They want “disruptive business plans and technologies”. The goal is no longer real innovation, it is simply to throw a lot of extra money against existing distribution paths in order to cut them off. (Or to corner markets on basic commodities, extracting money from the pockets of the common man.)

For example Staples, Home Depot, or the new wave telecom companies, start out cheap with the backing of investors. After they kill off the local businesses, they build up their own salaries and technology and insurance costs to the point that, well, look at what simple Chinese-made things cost in those same stores today, or the cost of VOIP. The prices are a lot higher, and the service is a lot worse, than if there was never any “disruption” to begin with.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That is nonsense… look at the promotions of any venture capital firm. They want “disruptive business plans and technologies”. The goal is no longer real innovation, it is simply to throw a lot of extra money against existing distribution paths in order to cut them off. (Or to corner markets on basic commodities, extracting money from the pockets of the common man.)

It’s simple logic. You call it nonsense yet use technology that wouldn’t have existed were it not for a certain inventor you called an S.O.B. because he too was disruptive.

Now I’m not even sure I’d like to know what these existing distribution paths you’re defending are. If your response is any indication, I wouldn’t be surprised you’d be for bringing back oil lamps. Shutting off new ideas for fear of protecting inefficient processes and products might be peace in your little utopia but I’d sooner be the lone rebel overturning such a stagnant society.

For example Staples, Home Depot, new telecom and energy companies, start out cheap with the backing of investors. After they kill off the local businesses, they build up their own salaries and technology and insurance costs to the point that, well, look at what simple Chinese-made things cost in those same stores today The prices are a lot higher than if there was never any “disruption” to begin with.

So you’re blaming new ideas for the inflation of unrelated costs of insurance and salaries? Didn’t they ever tell you that correlation doesn’t imply causation?