D
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
St Francis;8543632:
You two are upset because you think we are saying bad and unwarranted things about you, but you are saying bad and unwarranted things about us. I am not a person who blogs about the evil capitalists on a Mac, or anyone remottely like that.
I am not upset… ok ok ok ok I just choked my cat to near death… perhaps a bit over emotional… I have not said anything bad about you; I truly believe you have never shot an old woman
I also did not say that businessmen were necessarily greedy. I said something completely different, but you gloss right over that.
I don’t have the time or the money to read through Von Mises’s books.
I will send you one at no charge to you. Tell me how to get the money to you… perhaps i can send some money to Von M … i don’t know… See what happens when someone has a lot of money: he can educate but if someone came and took my money I could not send you any… truly I will send you some… do you need rent money?
That is very kind of youI also just do not have the time these days, as we are having an extremely busy year; I homeschool so things tend to get more busy here than usual. I am already behind on a few things…
From what I have read, distributism seems to advocate worker-owned coops for large businesses, and limited ownership for small businesses.
My own personal, probably not distributist idea is that publically-held corporations are “too big.” It is the diffusion of ownership which seems to me to cause problems.
I like the distributive idea of guilds. What I see is people belonging to a Guild based on locality and a guild based on type of business. The guilds would be the major regulators of the conditions of working in the field, and would include not just the “bosses” but also the employees. In Rerum Novarum, what I saw the Pope trying to say was that workers and bosses should be cooperating in the enterprise rather than taking inimical stances as communism advocates, and this is an area where I really see a lot of good being done.
The point about guilds is that they have to live by the rules they set up. Like right now, Congress set up the EEOC, but they themselves are not bound by the EEOC rules. So a Polish-sausage-making company in Chicago to whom no blacks ever even applied can be bankrupted by the enforcement of the rules, but the people who set up the rules are not themselves bound by them.
In other places, a store had to have disabled arrangements for people in wheelchairs, but had never had a person in a wheelchair come in.
These types of difficulties, and the thing you mentioned about raw milk, would be reduced, I think, if it were handled locally and within the field of the business, iyswim.
C
Cho
Guest
With all due respect, how can you complain about Castlen and I not understanding Distributive justice when you yourself obviously are clueless, or are refusing to explain the practicalities of how it would work? From here so far I think I understand it better than you. I believe what is going on here is simply a reflection of the huge schism within the Church that everyone is tippytoeing around. Leftists want to harness the Church to Create a Fair World and claim that the Church requires us to be slaves of a central state for enforcement of wealth redistribution and dialectical behavior management for the Greater Good and to create utopia on earth.
Others of us are trads, view the above philosophy as communist state worship and intended to destroy the Church (and almost has). I expect in the not so distant future there will be an official split. I will probably be martyred by the communists for my refusal to ignore laws against theft, killing, coveting, greed, homosexual behaviors, and tyrannizing my neighbor in the name of Making a Better World.
His Will be done.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Well, when you describe it like that, I’m against it too! And from what I have read, the part that I have bolded is not at all true about distributism, which is what I have been saying all along.
Trad Catholics aren’t the only ones against all this bad stuff, you know. And I imagine that some Trads are not thrilled with the Acton Institute.
F
frankpearson
Guest
I uploaded a little video, less than two minutes for a basic understanding of what distributism is. Hopefully someone will find it useful. I think we are misled by the word to misunderstand what it means. Hope it helps someone:
youtube.com/watch?v=9APuhxUKqgg
youtube.com/watch?v=9APuhxUKqgg
F
frankpearson
Guest
C
carn
Guest
Then you are in denial of reality and therefore your positions are understandable.
And the point about the mongols is, that they attacked some people who never provoked them and never heard about them. So the mongols prove that the it is an error to think by just being peaceful and leave others alone conflict could always be avoided and that is true for internal (criminals) and external threats.
I am not worried about the mongols, but it is possible that others are willing to attack my country or me even if everything possible is done not to give them reason.
I suspect your next argument will be along the lines “then we could fight far more effictively by localized militia/resistance and make it too costly for the aggressor, look how a military fails against that in afghanistan”. But it would only deepen your denial of reality.
On that you are somewhat correct and it would be correct if not for the mongols. A few of your neighbors would murder, rape and steal if the state would not be there or more precisely a few more would do so.
C
Cho
Guest
Good! Someone who knows about Distributionism! Can YOU explain HOW the Distributionists propose to distribute property, by whom, to whom , etc??
C
Cho
Guest
Sorry. You see, how this works is you have to explain HOW I am "in denial of reality " (smear of being mentrally ill) and provide proof of that. As smart as you think you are, your asserting it does not make it so. My point, which you decline to address, is that the state today terrorizes people as did the Mongols. Just because you have not yet been targeted, or you happen to agree that they should tyrannize/kill those they do does not make it less the truth. You think there might be some afghans or middle eastern tribes or children who never heard of Obama, Bush, Cheney, etc?? I’m sure they know now.
You are the one in denial of reality. My proof is that there was no justification for attacking Iraq, Libya, or Pakistan. We have no justification to be in Yemen, or even considering attacking Iran. Attacking these sovereign states and setting upm dictators to oppress the people is creating enemies for Americans. Now if YOU want to go over there and kill people for whatever reason, that is your choice. But spare me the crud about how they are “protecting my freedoms”, which grow less with each of these military excursions and are bankrupting this country. 71% of active military support RON PAUL, what does that tell you?How is that for “reality”?
C
Cho
Guest
OH, and BTW, the cops do not protect anyone from murder, etc. They show up afterward and scrape up your remains and wait for snitches to tell them who did it. If they somehow get to a crime scene they will set up a “perimeter” and wait until the bad guys are finished raping/killing and maybe catch them after a car chase with helicopters, etc. Ever heard of Columbine? That Dcotro whose wife and dtrs were raped and burned to death while the cops diddled around outside with perimeters and SWAT gear?? Your death, victimization provides excuses for funding their bureacracy. It is illogical to believe they would do anything to decrease crime.
C
carn
Guest
Sorry you mistook what i said for smear. Most people are in denial of reality in a lot of things and all people are in denial of reality regarding some things.
Just check out the cities Fallujah 2004 and Baghdad 1258.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Fallujah
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258
Mind that:
“On February 10, Baghdad surrendered. The Mongols swept into the city on February 13 and began a week of massacre and destruction.”
What damage the US did in Fallujah was done during fighting. They stopped damaging or killing after the city was secure. During the fighting 6000 civilians died. The Mongols started killing 3 days after winning and killed 100000+ civilians. It is not the same.
Iran declared war on the US in 1979, when taking control of US territory, no peace treaty since then, so the war continues.
Libya you are right, Jemen i do not know, there is nearly a civil war there with some forces trying to attack the US as well.
Having justification does not mean it is wise to act.
And it tells me that the “Lets be nice and fight wars.” approach of Bush and Obama(even worse) is wrong, either you are nice or you fight a war, trying both gives the bad results of both.
Besides, i do not think Paul wants to abolish the state, he seems to be in favor of a very limited state.
You provided the proof yourself. “terrorizes people as did the Mongols” implies same methods and same extent and same justification (or lack thereof).
Just check out the cities Fallujah 2004 and Baghdad 1258.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Fallujah
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258
Mind that:
“On February 10, Baghdad surrendered. The Mongols swept into the city on February 13 and began a week of massacre and destruction.”
What damage the US did in Fallujah was done during fighting. They stopped damaging or killing after the city was secure. During the fighting 6000 civilians died. The Mongols started killing 3 days after winning and killed 100000+ civilians. It is not the same.
Iraq was in a state of war with the US and was in violation of armistice conditions. Pakistan is either no sovereign nation - unable to stop attacks from Pakistan against Afghanistan - or is trying to wage a war without anyone noticing its interference, either case enough justification to attack targets inside Pakistan.
Iran declared war on the US in 1979, when taking control of US territory, no peace treaty since then, so the war continues.
Libya you are right, Jemen i do not know, there is nearly a civil war there with some forces trying to attack the US as well.
Having justification does not mean it is wise to act.
Where is this number from?
And it tells me that the “Lets be nice and fight wars.” approach of Bush and Obama(even worse) is wrong, either you are nice or you fight a war, trying both gives the bad results of both.
Besides, i do not think Paul wants to abolish the state, he seems to be in favor of a very limited state.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I’m trying to get a handle on what you are saying here…
It seems that you are saying that government is not needed.
That the only reason we want government is to protect us, which it does not do.
And that government by interfering in the economy messes it up.
Is that an accurate indication of your position?
(I’m not addressing the war issues because they are separate issues from the pure, should we even have a government issue.)
C
carn
Guest
(Unfortunately its not, any unprovoked aggressor - Mongols just proof there are such - will be very happy if all others lack a government.)
S
St_Francis
Guest
(I’m just saying that US involvement in those particular military actions are separate from the issue of having or not having a government)
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Well, here you go, here is a good short definition of Distributism:
youtube.com/watch?v=8nVldr6T7mQ&feature=related
If ever there was a government control system Distributism is it.
I have always wonderred how much quicker we could have attained many hight tech goals had it not been for government interference; e.g., the space program. Can you image had the governemtn allowed GE and GM and IBM and ATT Bell Labs to merge? Could we now be traveling in space? Could the heavens be more explored and the majesty of God be given greater glory?
look at this Distributism and follow its progress - it is the death of a growing ecoonomy.
youtube.com/watch?v=8nVldr6T7mQ&feature=related
If ever there was a government control system Distributism is it.
I have always wonderred how much quicker we could have attained many hight tech goals had it not been for government interference; e.g., the space program. Can you image had the governemtn allowed GE and GM and IBM and ATT Bell Labs to merge? Could we now be traveling in space? Could the heavens be more explored and the majesty of God be given greater glory?
look at this Distributism and follow its progress - it is the death of a growing ecoonomy.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Bolded… What a nightmare!
You said you read UHAE… didn’t you notice how the megarich of the time manipulated education? That was not government interference, that was directly from the owners of big businesses, to, again not the government but to professional associations.
When I was in college and very secular and sorta liberal, I remember how everyone complained about Senator Jesse Helms. They accused him of manipulation education in NC to supply the cotton industries with workers. Yeah, I know you look at that and see government interference, but I look at it and see big business instigation of government interference, or even more directly, big business interfering with schools.
And while you may see what the Gates foundation is contributing to education as charity, I wonder what’s behind it, and I wonder why they’re doing this particular thing? And I wonder precisely because I read Gatto’s book.
J
Jonatello
Guest
i find it notable that Americans have grown to look at government as this scary monster which is out of their control. They fail to realize its not because government exists (it always would), its because it no longer belongs/answers to them.
The ultimately false dichotomy between between private and state helps keep the private owners of the state of affairs firmly in place.
if the 2 biggest market NFL teams were allowed to buy as many players as they wanted, spend as much money as they wanted, become the dominant engine behind everyone’s opportunity, eventually the existence of the entire league would be in their hands, and thus they could set the rules. Of course, the league as a whole would suffer, eventually collapse, and bring down those 2 teams with them.
everyone talks about the top 1% being job creators, and we argue whether they are in fact putting any real effort into job creation, but the other part of it is: why in heavens name SHOULD they get to monopolize opportunity?
- Status