D
- Status
J
Jonatello
Guest
“anarchist market” is certainly not an attempt to disparage anyone. it’s not an insult. many decent people are proud anarchists.
i use the term “anarchist market” to specify a particular type of “free market”, as there are competing varying concepts of what a “truly free market” is and what kind of “freedom” is the best kind…because every kind of freedom comes with its own form of bondage toward another kind of freedom.
being free of sin means you contain and restrain the inclination to sin.
being free to take as many of your forest’s God-given acorns (finite in total) as you please (even if it means scarcity and a much harder road for the rest of the squirrels) means the other squirrels are no longer free to lead a well-rounded multi-faceted nurturing and edifying life because they must be in full-time bondage to their singular need for acorns.
“anarchist market” is my term for “a market with no rules in place beyond its own natural ones”, which ultimately leads to someone owning the entire lake and everyone else losing the freedom to wash or fish in it.
J
Jonatello
Guest
just wanted to clarify the above analogy:
“being free of sin means you contain and restrain the inclination to sin”
…or if you want to be theologically literal, you are cleansed by the grace of God such as via baptism or sacrament of reconciliation (God can do anything) , but we can swap out “sin” for “wrongdoing” if preferred for the sake of the analogy.
“being free of sin means you contain and restrain the inclination to sin”
…or if you want to be theologically literal, you are cleansed by the grace of God such as via baptism or sacrament of reconciliation (God can do anything) , but we can swap out “sin” for “wrongdoing” if preferred for the sake of the analogy.
C
Cho
Guest
Of COURSE!!! That’s why the eye rolly emoticon.
C
Cho
Guest
Can you provide an example of a free market that comes with it’s own bondage?? I am not understanding you.
Bondgae to need? How are you going to eliminate that other than enslaving all so that no one is in bondage to need? Why do you think enslaving all is more moral than some being in “bondage” to need? We already KNOW that does not work. Communism/socialism (the state owning/controlling [regulating] property) is not a viable economic system. That has been proven, experiment failed.
“Ultimately”?? Can you provide an example??
C
Cho
Guest
Jonatello;8570193 “anarchist market” is my term for “a market with no rules in place beyond its own natural ones” said:
J
je333
Guest
C
Cho
Guest
The human beings who make up the political class. Those who weild the aggression considered “legal” because they hold a monopoly on aggression, force. This also includes their croies who buy privilege from them.
C
Cho
Guest
You thought I was serious??:so inaccurate…
S
St_Francis
Guest
There is no “clinical” meaning of the word; it was coined to mean something and fewer than 10 years later, what it referred was specified in the Communist Manifesto. Definitions of words ARE the associations they have with that word; that’s the point.
In common discourse, when someone says communism, people do not think of hippies living in a commune or a cooperative like Mondragon, they think of Marxism and its off-shoots.
We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, since while communism may be broader than just Marxism or Maoism, since Stalinism, Leninism, Titoism, etc, would all be included, they are all off-shoots. Something that was not an off-shoot of Marxism and which was so different as to need explanation, would not be what comes to the average person’s mind when the word is used.
J
Jonatello
Guest
ok “clinical” may or may not have been the perfect word, but what i meant was “communism” is a term describing a basic concept for use in discussions of economic theory, more fundamentally-so than discussing various famous spin-offs, interpretations and versions of it.
its important for terms that refer to concepts to stay in reference to concepts when people (such as our pro-communist friend in here) use them to refer to that basic fundamental concept. Would you call something that fits Websters definition 1a/1b communism? If so, you shouldn’t automatically heap all of the additives of Websters 2a/b/c/d onto that concept which is being expressed.
Raw basic concepts need to be able to be referenced in order for all possible angles and theories regarding it to be discovered and discussed.
I think differentiating between lowercase “communism” and capital “Communism” is a fair way to keep both terms/concepts/references in our vocabulary.
as far as associations go, many if not most people associate “Haiti” with “Voodoo”, many Haitians practice voodoo, but it doesn’t mean the definition of “Haitian” is “practitioner of voodoo”
If you still disagree, I’ll have to throw in the towel and agree to disagree…with you lol
(especially since we’re on the same side of the larger debate here)
S
St_Francis
Guest
OK, all towels thrown in here
C
CyJo
Guest
This concept of “distributism” is against God’s design of individualism for human beings. This is a basic denial of God’s action in the world. When government controls the means of production God is given a back seat. God wants to bless us and has given each person talents and abilities. The answer is for governemnt to protect the rights of citizens to pursue opportunity and have equal opportunities. For example, if government builds a beautiful marketplace with nice buildings and pretty streets, but doesn’t let anyone in to trade, how much business do you think will happen? People need to be really free. Communism, Marxism, Socialism are forms of deceit that have tricked people throughout times of recent history. The answer is for Christians to promote and support individualism so that people can pursue God’s direction for their individual lives. If we let government control then we have tyranny of man. Government should protect freedoms and that should be government’s job.
J
Jonatello
Guest
distributists have as their goal MORE individuality for more individuals.
but also, community is important. There is healthy individuality and then there is rugged/selfish individualism that puts everyone’s focus on their own gain and rewards the most self-ambitious at the detriment of the least.
distributism is not anti-trade, and i’ve never heard a distributist say its wrong for some people to be wealthier than others.
but without any rules or limits to the market, you wind up with a completely locked-up market and and a more dictatorial government.
if someone is allowed to own the entire river, nobody else can freely fish.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
** And you will provide the rules, yes? and what kind of limits? where have you EVER seen a free economy that was 'locked-up" and a free market that created a "dictatorial government??? Please provide the data? This would help me buy into your program; albeit, everytime I read its definition it becomes vaguer and vaguer to me. It doesn’t seem to be a system but a desire. never the less, what free mar?ket every created a “locked-up” economy? and a dictatorial government? data, data**
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
I wish somebody would come up with another name for Distributism rather than Distributism. The modern mind is not capable of analytical thought or research and the sound bite word “Distributism” gets the pro-Enron crowd excited beyond measure, creating the idea that the local plumber had to steal something from somebody else in order to be self employed. Sad but true. There lies the measure of the exchange of ideas, a Panera Bread conversation by people who have no background. Oh well.
C
chipeto
Guest
Yes, Chesterton also disliked the name.
U
uni_embrace
Guest
I only became introduced the term Distributism recently. I understand it as a sydtem of capitalism in the true sense. ie that of the local greengrocer or small business being able to compete fairly as opposed to the monopoly capitalism which is so oftewn mistaken for the Free Market. I’m sure that many people who claim to be critics of capitalism are really critics of the latter rather than the former.
- Status