Is Distributism utopian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomarin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
I’m not exactly sure what you are talking about here: politics aside: Tea Party or OWS?
Click to expand...
all of the above…misguided, wellguided and halfguided alike lol
When the Church was providing all this aid, it was in a very decentralized system, very much in line with subsidiarity. Holy people would see a need and think of a way to help, they would get permission from the local bishop or from Rome, and then set up a fairly independent situation: a monastery, a monastic order, or similar. Rome was not really involved in the day-to-day running of things.
Click to expand...
that’s good, and hey as a Catholic you know i rejoice in the Church’s long history of immense charity. but i’m not sure the Catholic Church should have a monopoly on helping the poor if thats what you’re suggesting (probably not)
I think there was a lot more going on then than you realize, bt probably a bit far afield from our topic. I think that while distributist princilples are rooted in Catholic thought, that they work because the Catholic understanding of human nature is correct. Thus, distributism would work for all; you don’t have to be Catholic for it to work.
Click to expand...
oh trust me i’m with you 100% about not having to be Catholic for distributism to work, and the reasons why it happened to come from Catholicism. I was more expressing a concern of removing all other social/civic methods of helping those in need in favor of letting all aid to the needy be 100% the domain of the Catholic Church, an entity whose procedures can’t (and shouldn’t) be democratically adjusted.
Guilds: This is kind of a big subject; I will see if I can find something about it for you.
Click to expand...
awesome
 
Jonatello said:
all of the above…misguided, wellguided and halfguided alike lol

that’s good, and hey as a Catholic you know i rejoice in the Church’s long history of immense charity. but i’m not sure the Catholic Church should have a monopoly on helping the poor if thats what you’re suggesting (probably not)

oh trust me i’m with you 100% about not having to be Catholic for distributism to work, and the reasons why it happened to come from Catholicism. I was more expressing a concern of removing all other social/civic methods of helping those in need in favor of letting all aid to the needy be 100% the domain of the Catholic Church, an entity whose procedures can’t (and shouldn’t) be democratically adjusted.

awesome
Click to expand...
Oh, I certainly don’t think that charity should all be in the hands/the resonsibility of the Catholic Church, esp in a society that is not entirely Catholic! I just used that as an example because it once existed and worked for a really long time, attesting to practicality and sustainability.

One of my problems with government-run saftey nets is that it gives the impression to people that the probems of the needy are taken care of. The more “privatized” aid is, the more we “see” the needs and are (hopefully) moved to help.
 
St_Francis said:
Oh, I certainly don’t think that charity should all be in the hands/the resonsibility of the Catholic Church, esp in a society that is not entirely Catholic! I just used that as an example because it once existed and worked for a really long time, attesting to practicality and sustainability.
Click to expand...
oh ok phew! we’re in agreement then 🙂
the Catholic Church is a fantastic example in that case
One of my problems with government-run saftey nets is that it gives the impression to people that the probems of the needy are taken care of. The more “privatized” aid is, the more we “see” the needs and are (hopefully) moved to help.
Click to expand...
well, at the risk of thread-jacking, i actually believe the primary factor keeping people out of touch with the needs of others is the physical destruction of the shared public realm…ie: the spacial arrangements that facilitate the life and pulse of a local human community

much of this is tied very closely with the concerns of distributism, so maybe its not a complete post jack.
 
Jonatello said:
well, at the risk of thread-jacking, i actually believe the primary factor keeping people out of touch with the needs of others is the physical destruction of the shared public realm…ie: the spacial arrangements that facilitate the life and pulse of a local human community

much of this is tied very closely with the concerns of distributism, so maybe its not a complete post jack.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying, and I agree that our spacial designs and instability (moving a lot) are both detrimental, but I also see people who do encounter needy people saying, well, they can go to the government. I heard a lot of this wrt the homeless, for example, back when I used to work in a city.

The Church teaches that it is the government’s job to ensure that the poor are cared for. I think there is a role for the government, but I also believe that our current system is not working out very well for either the poor or the non-poor.
 
St_Francis said:
I see what you are saying, and I agree that our spacial designs and instability (moving a lot) are both detrimental, but I also see people who do encounter needy people saying, well, they can go to the government. I heard a lot of this wrt the homeless, for example, back when I used to work in a city.

The Church teaches that it is the government’s job to ensure that the poor are cared for. I think there is a role for the government, but I also believe that our current system is not working out very well for either the poor or the non-poor.
Click to expand...
oh ok yeah then i would agree with all of this
 
David_Castlen said:
Amen Cam:thumbsup: I am confused with the statement “capitalism is naturally amoral” I know you did not say that but can you address it.
Click to expand...
(shortened by Tomarin)

What I meant was that capitalism operates according to rules that are independent of human moral concerns, therefore it is amoral. The invisible hand of Adam Smith isn’t interested in producing morally good or bad outcomes; it operates according to its own logic which doesn’t really care about human beings and their needs.
 
carn said:
You equate what people do under capitalism with what capitalism is.

Tell me, what is immoral if the state interfers only in private property rights, if there is at least a plausible justification and a law defining the exact terms?

What is morally wrong if you take money from people unwilling to give it freely only insofar you are quite sure it is necessary?
Click to expand...
What is immoral is that the state has a god-given responsibility to uphold the natural law. Reducing or eliminating that role leads to anarchy.
 
tomarin said:
(shortened by Tomarin)

What I meant was that capitalism operates according to rules that are independent of human moral concerns, therefore it is amoral. The invisible hand of Adam Smith isn’t interested in producing morally good or bad outcomes; it operates according to its own logic which doesn’t really care about human beings and their needs.
Click to expand...
Excellent, thank you
 
David_Castlen said:
You know what I have primarily learned from these post? It is very easy to sucker people into the sin of socialism by giving it another name.😦
Click to expand...
Did you come to the conclusion that Distributism (the ownership of property by individuals, widely distributed, so that they can earn a living from their own work of that property) is the same as socialism (the ownership of all property by all, but no single, person(s) and the use of said property by some people for the benefit of all people) the same thing?

If so, how?
 
JRRTFAN said:
Did you come to the conclusion that Distributism (the ownership of property by individuals, widely distributed,

**I came to the conclusion that Distriubtism forces (takes from) people in hopes that ii **

so that they can earn a living from their own work of that property)

I cam to the conclusion that Distributism takes from people in a (failed) effort to insure that “they” can earn a living from their own work. I came to the conlcusion that stealing is a sin.

is the same as socialism (the ownership of all property by all, but no single, person(s) and the use of said property by some people for the benefit of all people) the same thing?

When a force (for example a Distributist governemtn) takes from those who have in an attempt to insure that those who have little so that those who have little can produce, it is on the side of socialism and in fact is socialism: giving some of the ownership of those who have to those who have little. Distributism is takig from people; Socialism is taking from people. They both lead to envy of the lessor haves and the taking of property.

If so, how?
Click to expand...
Again, let me say forced Charity is not Charity. If we Catholics rid ourselves of government programs (we can do it we have the votes) and we were to be the providers to the poor then they would be much much better off, the uneducated would be further advanced and the hearts of all would be cleaner. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on the government. When you allow the government to have everyone’s property to whatever extent you are socialist; you in effect, have given owenership of property to all and the use of property to all.

And here is the sad thing: Distributist does not work. The poor become poorer. I can not understand how the program of taking from the producers and job creators can possibly work. do you think that if one has 90% of all the money in a society that he takes from those who have 10%? do you not understand that those who have 10% can increase their financial status expontentially even if the 90%er remains at 90%? Or do you think that there is a fixed amount of resources and finances; maybe that is your and other socialist difficulty with this wonderful thing we call free-enterpirse. Ask the people of Hong Kong if they like it? The richers nation in the world with virtually no poverty and the most free country in the world.

Distributism is the Road to Serffom:shrug:
 
St_Francis said:
In answer to some of the questions which have been raised, or comments made:
  1. Distributism is not socialistic, because income-producing property is diffused into the hands of …
  2. Any human system requires some governance; it is Catholic teaching that government is necessary.
  3. Now, I…be no “stealing,” per se.
  4. The problem with our current system is, I believe, a part of the system. The way I see it is that unchecked capitalism leads directly to what we have now. I just don’t see any way around that, so I can’t …ributive system.
  5. Catholic teaching is that government is necessary in concert with our human nature. We will …to renew them under their own control.
  6. By including mediating structures such as guilds, …when necessary.
Click to expand...
  1. The idea of widely distributed wealth is good (and most easily and ethically achieved via capitalism and free markets)…BUT HOW is this convenient “diffusion” achieved? WHO “diffuses” it and how? WHAT criteria is used to determine who gets a piece of mid-town Manhattan and WHO gets the rocky hillside in W.Va.? SPECIFICS, please. The only way this could be achieved is with communism/socialism, the seizure of property and the doling it out as desired by those with guns.
  2. Men will be governed by their own passions, by other men, or by following God’s laws as taught by the Church. I do not believe it is Church dogma that men must be ruled by other men. IF this is so, please direct me to it. AND if this is true please explain how the Holy Family could righteously flee Herods edict and go to Egypt, how could Caesars tax collectors be deemed sinners?? Being the slave of a political class who forces their whims at gunpoint is not the only type of “governance” there is.
  3. Sorry, but “getting from here to there” is the entire issue. Do we allow people the liberty their Creator endowed them with or do we chain them in servitude? We all want fair treatment, we all dislike poverty, sickness, etc. Christ taught that the poor would always be with us, however. And it is our choice how we deal with that, as individuals, not collectively stealing from those who have “more” and giving to those who “have less”. Can I come to your home, take what I want and pay you what I want for it? If I did that it would be stealing…PER SE. Please provide your definition of “theft”.
  4. So you are saying that the right of the individual to freely own their own property, keep the fruits of their labor is causing concentration of wealth, state tyranny, poverty, endless wars against third world countries and confiscation of their resources? HOW? Please explain your theory of how the right to own property privately is causing this.
  5. Government is not necessarily enslavement to other men, although you choose to claim that is what it is and that it is the position of the CHURCH that this is so. I disagree. See above. As a matter of fact, and history, the state…BECAUSE of human nature…will always devolve into tyranny of the ruthless against those unwilling to resort to immorality to attain power. The proof of this is apparent through all of human history. It is true that the Church provided a buffer between the state and the masses…and did this under the recognized authority of the Lord (although popes did have armies at times). You think that somehow “mediating structures” are going to control humans who have an absolute monoploy on aggression against other people?? Good luck with that. Local gov’ts have no power against the Feds because Abe Lincoln denied the right of the states to withdraw from the union, effectively ending the grand experiment in “Constitutional government” about 60 years after it began. The states NEVER ratified the Constitution with the intent of relinquishing their autonomy to the central state. The Constitution was a limit on the central state. The Church has always been free to continue their “buffering” function but she has chosen to throw in with statists, begging for crumbs from “the table”, accepting state loot, allowing the hierarcy to be infiltarted by communists and homosexuals intent on destroying her.
    5.(?). Guilds are nothing but protectionist devices denying some people the right to access to certain economic sectors by established interests, unions for tradesmen and businessmen. Denying people economic access is part and parcel of slavery. There is no right of some humans to do this to others. It prevents innovation and market competition and natural market driven wealth redistribution… It is HOW wealth becomes concentrated with some people. One legitimate function of the state is supposedly contract enforcement and protection but the political class routinely SUBVERTS the right to contract by negating some contracts (as in denying mortgage holders the right to foreclose as contracted).
 
Jonatello said:
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. we’re also told that we’ll always be sinners in this life. doesn’t mean we stop trying to remove sin from our lives.

we have the capacity to eradicate poverty. just as we have the capability to obey our conscience and avoid doing things we know to be sinful.

we should try.

shoot for the stars, land on the moon right?

also, maybe its possible we’re crossing 2 different definitions of poverty:
  • humble neediness that is cared for
    vs
  • desperate scarcity that is left unaddressed
Click to expand...
The question is, are “we” collectively absolved of having to try to care for the poor if the state takes over doing this and loots us claiming they are helping the poor? Suppose “we” help the poor by freeing them to have economic access unhindered by laws and regulations telling them what they can make, sell, eat, and demanding credentials and licenses beyond their reach although they may be quite competent? The AMA is a guild.
 
David_Castlen said:
Again, let me say forced Charity is not Charity. If we Catholics rid ourselves of government programs (we can do it we have the votes) and we were to be the providers to the poor then they would be much much better off, the uneducated would be further advanced and the hearts of all would be cleaner. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on the government. When you allow the government to have everyone’s property to whatever extent you are socialist; you in effect, have given owenership of property to all and the use of property to all.

And here is the sad thing: Distributist does not work. The poor become poorer. I can not understand how the program of taking from the producers and job creators can possibly work. do you think that if one has 90% of all the money in a society that he takes from those who have 10%? do you not understand that those who have 10% can increase their financial status expontentially even if the 90%er remains at 90%? Or do you think that there is a fixed amount of resources and finances; maybe that is your and other socialist difficulty with this wonderful thing we call free-enterpirse. Ask the people of Hong Kong if they like it? The richers nation in the world with virtually no poverty and the most free country in the world.

Distributism is the Road to Serffom:shrug:
Click to expand...
Exactly. Socialism/communism is PROVEN to be a nonviable economic system. What we have are people who are fearful of responsibility. They are afraid to get out of the boat of the state, they want to live by the sword totally clueless that the sword will always be wrested from them and used against them (see Hayeks “The Road to Serfdom”, Chapter entitled “Why the Worst Rise to the Top”). Attempting to plan a “fair” economy is impossible for humans. No committee or economic genius has the knowledge of what people need, want, can afford, etc., at any given time. This process is accomplished by free markets entered into by risk taking entrepreneurs. It is a constant process of tittration of resources, capital, innovation, competition…and the consumer WINS! Prices are kept as low as possible, benefitting the POOR!. Jobs are created at all levels, benefitting ALL! No government of crats has the knowledge, intelligence or moral fiber to accomplish what free markets can do.
 
St_Francis said:
When you put some of what you write within the quote, without using
Click to expand...
your response
, it is very difficult to respond to all your points, because there is no way to pick up those points.
Click to expand...
Maybe you could re-post your response in a way that the rest of us can respond to.
Click to expand...
  1. I would be glad to; however,
  2. No one on this blog can answer as clearly my view as Cho, so
  3. I suggest you read his responses as his responses reflex exaclty my thouhgts; albeit,
  4. If you want to get a perfect view of where I come from may I suggest:

    “The Law” written by a great Catholic Frederic Bastiat, or better yet all of his writings they can
    be found in a complete book form at the Von Mises web sight

    “Natural Law, the foundation of an Orderly Economic System” by Alberto m. Piedra another wonderful Caholic

    “Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition” by Anthony Percy - a Catholic priest philisoopher and economist.

    "Within The Market Strife, American Catholic Economic Thought from Rerum Novarum to Vatican II’ by Kevin Shcmiesing

    “The Church and the Market, A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy” by Thomas E. Woods. By the Way he has a great book on the middle ages that is a must read. The middle ages: The Golden Ages.
“The Boundaries of Technique, Ordering Positive and Normative Concerns in Economic Research” Andrew Yuengert

“Faith and Liberty, The Economic Thught of the Late Scholastics” by Alejandro A. Chafuen. Another Catholic authur. Here you will find the origins of the Free Market. It did not originate with Adams or Locke or Humes who where Utilitarians but with Catholics looking for a Just market.

“We Who Dared To Say No to War” another one by Thomas Woods (co-authered with Murray Polner… this is not per se an economic’s book. But nothing effects an economy more than wars.

These are just a few books. I can think of no better web sights than The Acton Institute and Von Mises to really understand economics, justice and philisophy. Eat your heart out Plato.

Again, I will try to go back. But, my concern is that you may be trying to win an arguement instead of really trying to help the poor, imprisoned and lonely. If you win, and as Thomas Sowel says, you will probably win; then our society will get closer than it ever has been to tryranny or anarchy. The poor will really be poor: no food, no clothing. But there is a silver lining. It appears that people come closer to God when they are poor.:hug3:
 
Cho said:
No government of crats has the knowledge, intelligence or moral fiber to accomplish what free markets can do.
Click to expand...
or to put it another way, my friend.👍.

In order for socialism to work, “all would have to be angles and the rulers would all have to be gods”

Was that Hayak or Von Mises?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top