T
tomarin
Guest
shortened by Tomarin
I’m not sure you can say capitalism is more moral than socialism when capitalism is by its very nature amoral. I would agree that it is more workable than socialism by a very large margin.
- Status
I’m not sure you can say capitalism is more moral than socialism when capitalism is by its very nature amoral. I would agree that it is more workable than socialism by a very large margin.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, let’s use that definition of utopian. I still don’t see a big difference between distributism and some other -ism that you would like to classify as utopian. Doesn’t every -ism have an ideal that is aimed for to one degree or another? Apparently the “imaginary” aspect of utopian is significant to you. And what do we mean by “imaginary”? Can we say it is something that we imagine but which is never perfectly achieved? If so, then Catholicism has imaginary ideals in that we strive to follow Christ perfectly, even though no one has done it perfectly yet. I don’t think imagining an unrealized goal is so bad. The goal itself may be bad or good, but not just by the fact that it is impossible to realize perfectly.
I begin to wonder which systems you would call utopian. Let’s suppose you say communism. It has a very different ideal from distributism. But it is still an ideal. And there are some implementations of communism that do seem to take into account the limitations due to human nature. These are imperfect implementations and those who are doing the implementing are well aware that their implementation is imperfect. And that’s the way they want it because they are balancing other values (like economic prosperity) with the the goals of communism. The Chinese system is an example of such an imperfect implementation of communism as they begin to introduce certain aspects of individual property ownership and capitalistic incentives that they find useful. It is hard to see how anyone could call today’s Chinese implementation of communism “idealistic”.
On the other hand I see nothing in the fundamental definition of distributism that calls for moderation and compromise with the reality of human nature. There is just your assertion that distributism is “in accord” with human nature. What that essentially says is that we don’t need to compromise the ideals of distributism to make allowances for the reality of human nature because human nature is already perfectly suited for it. However the ideals of distributism are still imaginary in the sense that there is no perfect implementation of it today, and its goals are only imagined.
I agree with you. But that does not mean I want to pass a law making it illegal for a bank to be nation-wide. That gets too much into picking winners and losers without the benefit of having the market sort it out. If local banks are just as effective in serving the people, then they will prosper. If conditions change and a nation-wide bank is better able to serve, then it will prosper. If nation-wide banks prosper only because of some injustice in the system (like the ability to be a monopoly) then the conditions that permit such an injustice should be changed, and that will again give local banks a chance to compete.
C
carn
Guest
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?
D
David_Castlen
Guest
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. I find no logic in the comment, no evidence, no staring point … If there ever was a moral market it is the capitalist system that says do as you wish but do not violate the natural laws and be kind to you neighbor. Yes people violate it, bu typically they find the best method to violate thses laws via a government program… the free market will clean itself up faster than any governemnt. I know you agree with me - will I think you do - but I would like to see your response.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Yes, but the ideal is different from idealism, which is why I also included its definition.*
The difference between a mere ideal and an idealistic idea are considerable. The aims and goals of communism are to create a system which will perfect people, as I wrote earlier in the thread.*
To have a merely ideal state is one which accepts the limitations of human nature and does not ignore the reality in favor of an imaginary vision of possibilitiy.
Oh, very much so! It is the imagined idea of perfection which causes communism, socialism, and various other types of proposals to be so very dangerous.
No. By imaginary i mean ignoring the reality of human nature which causes them to propose to “perfect” people by enveloping them in a system which does not accomdate their nature.
Catholicism takes into account our human nature and gives us tools to improve ourselves as well as supplying the opportunities to acquire God’s help or grace.
No, that is something for which God gave us imaginations.
Well, i would say that there are two kinds of goals, one which has elements which are beyond your control, and one which may be difficult to achieve but the elements of which are in your control.
So one salesman, for example, might have as a goal to make a certain amount in commissions; another may have the goal of contacting a certain number of people.
Now consider a slightly insane salesman who is selling something he believes will be extremely good for people. He is so intent on doing people good by selling them this item that he may become quite forceful about it, no? And because he is so intent on doing people this beneficial thing, he does not see realostically, he just goes on and on; because his intent is to do good, the tactics he will use have no boundaries.
But it is an unrealistic ideal because it does not conform to reality.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Check out Matthew 7;18, if you believe in such things.
C
Cho
Guest
Excellent scripture, so is 1 Samuel 8. Yes, Distributism is utopian and no, claiming it isn’t is not proof it isn’t. A state will still be in charge of the distributing and collecting taxes. The same flawed humans who commies claim turn into greedy monsters when allowed economic liberty and to own property do not become saints when given the absolute power of the state over other men. They will use that power to enslave. Reality is not state vs more state, it is state vs liberty of the individual. Any scheme forced on everyone at gunpoint for “the greater good” will bring misery, Lord save us from planners and do-gooders. The only system that is moral (does not depend on theft, aggression, murder) is capitalism (PRIVATE ownership- including CONTROL- of the means of economic production and distribution) and the free market. Resources are allocated according to ability, opportunities are created for others by entrepreneurs, capital is created by saving, and saving is encouraged by sound money. There is no state providing gatekeeping for entrenched interests and companies “too big to fail”. The greatest rise in the standard of living of people was before the schemes and utopian communist societies were forced on people. Ludwig Von Mises “The Anti-Capitalist Mentality” (free for download at Mises.org) is an excellent explanation of the two philosophies.
C
carn
Guest
And you think the quote applies to large scale organizations like states verbatim?
Then all states and all potential political and economic systems are per definition evil, because the moment you apply equal or more or less equal laws to 10 million people and charge human manned courts and police forces with the enforcement for at least a few people the laws and police actions will have unjust results (e.g. imprisonement of innocent, errors in use of police force). Then accroding to your argument the system must be bad. But changing it, it will still be bad, because other people will suffer (e.g. more crime victims because too much restrain among police). Still bad, again change. And so on.
And you have not answered the question, why it is immoral to take property only when there is just reason and a legal basis.
Besides through 2000 years church history i am absolutely certain everybody will find at least one bad event, that was to a large part caused by church structures. Then using your approach one would have to assume the church is a bad tree.
And example might be the abuse scandal. A lot of people seem to assume that common disciplinary reactions - putting a suspect priest elsewhere in charge - aidede in further abuse. If those people - and there are bishops among those - were right the church would be a bad tree. I personally see Malleus Maleficarum as a bad fruit, not caused with intent by the church, but nonetheless something that developed inside the church.
Besides even Pope John Paul II said that some bad things happened in church history.
The only way to avoid calling the church a bad tree is not to look at everything which some of its members did, but to look at her principles and those are without bad fruit.
The same i apply to state or economic setups. Even a perfect system would lead to injustice. By looking only at the actions of people living under the rules and condeming a system if one acts wrong, we would discard all good trees, as always some will act wrong.
Therefore the basics of a system are decisive, just as with church not the actions of some bishops or popes are decisive, but what the church teaches.
And i cannot see the evil in a system that attempts not to trespass on private property.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
**Ah!!!
:thumbsup:you are speaking to my heart brother…don’t forget Bastiat, or Tom Woods, or Hayak…!!!.. I became a Catholic a few years ago after a difficult hard decision-making process…I could not wait to share The Faith with my Baptist brothers after I made the plunge… I find I need (myself) evangelizing to just as much as before but what surprises me my fellow Catholics buy into this immoral socialism… you can call it distributism you can call it liberalism (they stole the name from us) no matter it is stealing… Oh and GK Cheston’s writing had a lot to do with my move; an dear lord he is/ was a proponent of this method of stealing… well its nice to know GK is not God.**
C
Cho
Guest
I am also a convert, love Woods, Tucker, Rockwell. Chesterton was awesome. I don’t know how anyone can read “Heretics” and “Orthodoxy” and not become at least believers, if not Catholic. C.S. Lewis probably explained Catholicism the most effectively, a sort of Chesterton-lite. Had I realized the degree to which Catholicism has been infiltrated by communists I am not sure I would have converted. It is the one True Faith, but to voluntarily join a collective and be put in a position of tacitly supporting communism is SO depressing. The economic ignorance is astounding. Chesterton can be forgiven his utopianism, he hung out with G.B.Shaw and Fabianism was full of promise at that time. We now know that redistribution of wealth and economic planning does not work. Theft is theft, it doesn’t become righteous when state agents do it “for the greater good”. Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution rather than state owned (and control is the essence of ownership), although communists of varying degrees try to redefine it as todays corporate state-mercantilism. Todays economic issues are the direct result of communist policies, NOT market failures. And I agree with Mises’ argument that there is no real difference between socialism and communism. State classes “distributing” property as they see fit, no matter according to what formula, who proposes it or how small a parcel, is socialism. At any rate, it’s nice to see a rational thinker here. 2+2 does not equal 5 even if Distributionists proclaim it. As the laws of physics cannot be denied, so do economic laws exist and violating them with utopian schemes to end poverty will bring poverty
C
Cho
Guest
Such as???
S
St_Francis
Guest
Distributism is nothing like socialism, and has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. And what do you think taking from our children and grandchildren and fiving it to Golsman Sachs, et al, is? That is the corporo-government form that “capitalism” has morphed into: corporate socialism.**Ah!!!
**
The thing about distributism is that businesses do not become too big to fail. The responsibility does not become so diffused that morality is eradicated by economic considerations. Power does not become so concentrated that the lists of government experts, lobbyists, and corporate board members and executives all look alike over time.
What I see going on now is no advertisement for capitalism on a large scale. Distributism is capitalism on a human scale.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Quite a lengthy reply to seven words of scripture, my friend.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Hail hail!!!
I have always thought of putting a club together of Libratarian Catholics. I was considering
naming it The Bastiat Society. Its purpose would be primarily to educate and evangialize those who hold on the he sin of socialism. You - it appears - would be a great contributor.
I am amazed that on this sight, Catholic Answers, how I get so very many response of people who are opposed to capitalism and buy into this sin of socialism changing its name like all good sophist to things like Distributism, Charity. They have stolen our right and obligation to be a light to the world. If we CAtholics did the public charity our works would bring millions in and back to the Faith. Will God bless you. My email is dcastlen50@hotmail.com if you are interested in pursueing The Bastiat Society idea.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Have you all even read this thread? Distributism is NOT socialistic!!! Distributism is more like the north in US before the Industrial Revolution. It is **against ** socialism and all that.
And yes, it is also against out-of-control corporations!
And yes, it is also against out-of-control corporations!
D
David_Castlen
Guest
The great lion, named Distributist, of the business world who controlled all the animals and transactions got all the animals together at a great banquet hall: the lions, the fish, the birds, the cats, the deers, the pigs etc. With great fanfare and a holy atmosphere, he made a proclamation, “From now on we will not eat each other.” To this the rabbit annouced his approval of this loving and wise plan and after expressing his excitement of it he got up from the table as fast as he could and ran for his life
S
St_Francis
Guest
I’m sorry, my last replies came out a lot crankier than I had intended! I guess if I am too busy to edit that I’m too busy to post, so I’m gonna take a bit of time off.
C
carn
Guest
Quite an intelectual empty reply as to how those seven words have to be understood.
Why hang around a catholic forum, when you believe that any tree that produces at least one single bad fruit is a bad tree?
The church produced at least one bad fruit.
C
Cho
Guest
So who distributes the property to see that it is widely distributed in small holdings? How is this not wealth redistribution?
???Where have I posted in support of state bailouts of their cronies (Goldman Sachs, etc)?? That is not private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution, that is the state claiming ultimate ownership of alll and redistributing it to their cronies…socialism. The powerless Progressives (as distinguished from the Obammunists) simply want THEIR cronies on the receiving end (feminists, homosexuals, Marxist teachers), it’s the same socialism/communism.
The bigness of business is not the problem, the problem is the state creating regs that enslave and subject the rest of us to them distorting the market and protecting them from competition, “sanitation” laws preventing the farmer from selling raw milk, unprocessed or “inspected” foods depriving him economic access and the public of healthy food on the pretext of “public safety”. Distributism would still put economic power in the state that will inevitably corrupt and cronies would receive special treatment, that is the nature of man. Once allowed a monopoly on aggression (that IS the state) there is no way to stop them as we currently see, the Constitutional limits on government are worthless and ignored. You are blaming business for playing the game that the state has set up. The state has the power, the monopoly on aggression and they SELL it to the highest bidders (“lobbyists”). It is a legalized mafia…except even the mafia realizes you have to make a living and do not require you to love them. What you see going on now is not capitalism, although statists of various stripes are doing their darndest to redefine it as such and to eradicate the idea of private property from Western thought.
- Status