Is Distributism utopian?

[Cho]

The state has the right through laws. If someone runs someone else deliberately over with his car, it is an abuse of property.
If some chem factory runs on lousy sadeft standards and explodes killing thousands of people, it is abuse of property.
Obviously removing corporate personhood and leaving nothing to sue against, is a bad idea. But corporate personhood is an artificial construct, as only humans have rights and the corporate personhood is an attempt to “combine” the actual rights of the owners so that they can be used into relation of their property. As it is artificial one could change it without unavoidable harm to the property rights of its owners. And the lack of clear ownership could provide sufficient reason to change something.

No, the state has no magical rights or authority. The authority underlying modern states is the myth that they are representative of the people, that the people are self governing. This is untrue as any victim of the political class can tell you. If a company causes damage then they are liable for those damages, must pay compensation…it’s not “abuse of property”(??). Companies use the state to get away from this by getting laws written, like drug companies having “funds” that victims of vaccine damage are required to go through for damages, or workmens comp. Removal of the corporate limited liability would make it very difficult to have a mortgage, sell shares of a company, etc.

 

[frankpearson]

Well, yeah, because one of the trick words here is “encourage”. You can blame unscrupulous politicians for using “encourage” when by right and truth they should have used the word “force”, or “enforce”.

But thanks for the video link. If I can take this definition as authoritative, then I’m definitely opposed to Distributism. In part because it is immoral (the implication of the use of force is quite clear), and in part because it is unworkable (because it can’t create new and especially revolutionary businesses).

I know why I thought you were neo-classical now. You take a neo-classical approach when it comes to even the slightest involvement of the government in something that is presented as distributist, but at the same time you admit flat out that capitalism without any government oversight doesn’t work.

Distributism is an abstract idea. You are distributist to the level you believe a free market should be sustained through regulation of monopolistic practices in business and you work for the proliferation of property among the people of a state. That’s all it is.

I recommend you at least listen to Belloc’s makes the historical case for distributism. I have the audio book available on my youtube page:
youtube.com/watch?v=firDHyWtD6E&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

 

[JRRTFAN]

Your education is a bit stale. Political science now recognizes other forms of socialism, including regulatory socialism. The difference is that under regulatory socialism, you still “own” your means of production, but you don’t control it. The socialist state controls it by means of regulatory or legislative power (in short, you own it but the state controls it).

If that is all it means, then Distributism is a word with no discriminatory meaning, because that exists right now.

Whoops! There is where you have to stop and explain HOW Distributism “supports the local shoe store” rather than the “big box store”. Without the application of some kind of regulatory or legislative power, what would be different under Distributism than what we currently have?

Answer: license. See my other posts about this.

Excuse? You just argued against Distributism, not for it. That is what we have NOW, the right to set up shop and grow as big as the market allows you to do so.

A little place I like to call “reality.”

If Distributism does not already exist, it must be brought into existence by one of two methods: 1) People are taught what it means, and then adopt the tennets on their own absent coercion 2) A sufficiently powerful entity is created to enforce it.

If number 1, then what will you do with Walmart? Just preach against it, but nothing else? If so, then what will you do when people continue to prefer to shop at Walmart?

If number 2, then can you see how people would consider Distributism to be fundamentally evil, since it would further violate their personal rights and liberties?

You mean, just like today, absent a decade or two of government overreach?

I think I do. Either you have a word that is a synonym for the free market, and thus this discussion is moot, or you are not discussing policy for some reason or another.

Know what, you’re a lost boy in tall weeds. Go do you some research about reality. What in the wide world of sports makes you think Distributism opposses a free market economy? Who’s axe are you grinding?

 

[Cho]

The answer is simply, NO a distibutist would not close it. A Distributist would not call on the government to improve the competetive situation of the Distributist. The Distributist would, however, oppose the WalMart in its efforts to get tax benefits to entice it to come to town. Are you aware of the concept of tax benefits to entice business stimulation? Did you know WalMart makes use of those benefits? Why do you think WalMart or Olive Garden or McDonalds should get tax benefits that a local store does not get? Do you feel that WalMart needs the competetive edge?

I’ll say it again, you guys are arguing against a straw man. There is a good article in Wikipedia, take a bit to reads it.

Read the wiki. article and I’m not seeing any practical description of how this would work. It appears to be as Meme describes, there would have to be an overriding authority to grant property/licenses. As I see it, YOU are the one who needs to read more.

 

[frankpearson]

David_Castlen:
So if the people of a country voted, say, that child labor should be illegal within the borders of the state, then that is the state controlling businesses not to use children as they want and not the people making a decision. The rhetoric from the targeted libertarian opinion is not helping anything. Making laws that restrict people from doing things the people consider immoral or destructive to the community is accepted by the great majority of free people.

 

[Cho]

Oops. The “courts”? An arm of government, that requires a policing authority, that judges the applicability of the work of the legislative part of the government, and if applicable, applies it? Said application requiring a penalty system, ranging from prisons to authorities to levy and collect fines?

The straw man argument that is thrown at capitalists in regards to their desire to eliminate government is just that: a straw man. A free market requires a government in order to keep the playing field fair and just. Modern economics rarely, if ever talks about economic systems absent their political context, and often times uses the term “political economy” to indicate such.

The question always arises as to how much government, and how much power to grant it, and most importantly “What is fair?” (As Catholics, we can answer the “what is fair?” question by pointing out that, in large part, Western Civilization is a construct of Holy Mother Church), but it is never reasonable to talk about an economic system absent a governing authority.

Even in the so-called “pure capitalist state”, government emerges, though it is of course so closely allied to the business entities that are created as to be somewhat difficult to spot.

Well, we already have anti-monopoly statues, so I don’t see Ron Paul as fixing that. I agree that the notion of a fair playing field obviates the concept of “too big to fail”, or of a company getting preferential treatment to attract them to a given location, so I’m right there with you on that part of it.

But Ron Paul has very little chance of getting elected. Too much baggage, and too many off-the-wall crazy ideas to overcome.

Private courts are an option, contracted for by agreeing parties. It’s already going on as arbitration agreed to by credit card users for dispute resolution. Crooked judges won’t get business. Anti-monopoly statutes are unnecessary. In a free market innovators and competitors would eat away at large companies. There would be those who would collude, etc. but a free market would stand a better chance of beating that. It’s going on now even with the state (state consolidation of media, food companies, oil companies, car manufacturers) supposedly saving us from monopolists.
If Ron Paul does not get elected it won’t be for the reasons you cite. He has much less “baggage” than any other politician in the US. His track record is impeccable, his principles unnassailable…at least if you are a Constitutionalist or a free market economist. He is the only politician who understands economics. He has predicted the economic issues we are facing and has real solutions for them.
If he does not get elected it will be because of the television continuously saying that he has little chance of getting elected and because the fix is in. Refusing to publicize his many straw poll wins while raving about zero economically illiterate candidates like Cain is simply election tampering., manipulating the public who have been trained to respond like dogs to the marginalizing of those who deviate from the Establishment memes…like the idiocy that gold is “dangerous” and that the economy must be “run” by planners.

 

[Cho]

The strawman argument *is *the fallacy. It means re-wording the opponent’s argument wrongly and then refuting the erroneous argument.

So I am saying that your description of distributism is wrong, and that the arguments you bring up against your erroneous description of distributism do not refute our arguments for distributism because your arguments are not directed against what we are arguing for but against something else altogether.

But you have not explained how Distributism does not require an authority/lord/state to decide licenses, property, etc…and that is a form of socialism (not a form of capitalism…which is private ownership of property). So claiming that your arguments are not refuted is ridiculous since you haven’t really MADE any argument that proves Distributism is not a form of socialism. All you have done is declare that those who point out that Distributionism is a form of socialism are wrong and that our points are “straw man arguments” because they do not describe what Distributionism is (and you conveniently evade describing), in your opinion.

 

[Cho]

So if the people of a country voted, say, that child labor should be illegal within the borders of the state, then that is the state controlling businesses not to use children as they want and not the people making a decision. The rhetoric from the targeted libertarian opinion is not helping anything. Making laws that restrict people from doing things the people consider immoral or destructive to the community is accepted by the great majority of free people.

LOL! “The great majority of free people”??? So what does that make the minority?? The Great Majority now use contraceptives, abort, do not attend church, are idolators of one form or another,must be righteous, the Great majority accept these things, right? Ahhh, statism and her holy liturgy of “voting” to enslave the minority to the will of the majority. Gotta love living by the sword.

 

[frankpearson]

Who is going to do the discourgaging? The gods? who will know how to distribute concentrate properly in order to encourage "proper’ concentration? This is baffling; but i tell you what, it will sell.

Nobody “distributes” property… I just wish you would listen.

The word distributism refers to the state of the market, whether property is well distributed or concentrated. It has nothing to do with the action of distributing something.

It is about the people working personally for distributist solutions, encouraging others to do so, and working for distributist legislation.

If the people vote for a law against partial birth abortion, it is the people making that decision, not the government. If the people vote for regulations in the market, it is people making those decisions. We should drop the unrestrained capitalist rhetoric unless we believe there should be no regulation in the market.

 

[frankpearson]

Today is Encouragement Day :clapping::clapping::clapping:

**Would all Encouragers please show up an hour early in order go go over the names of those who have over concentrated. We have developed a new script that well help you to be more effective in your efforts to encourage a reduction concentration.

Please note those of you who have the names of the Concenstrators with over 70% of their base effecientcy levels report to room 121. We will discuss some flaws in the system .

We are having a rally at Bob’s Bar next Saturday to encourage new legislation that will force the “over 70%ers” to give up their excessive immoral concentrations. We will march in the streets for proper concentration levels!!!

Bring your copies of Das Capital to next Thursday’s meeting as we will address the only alternative if our concentration levels goals are not met by EOY

**

Manifesto is much more to the point… take that instead. I am just kidding of course.

 

[Cho]

I think you are tending toward distributism. The division, in the abstract between the three systems is very clear to a distributist-

Capitalism (libertarian) - capital and land are owned by the free market, concentrated or not concentrated however that distribution of capital and land fall

Socialism - capital and land are controlled by the state

Distributism - capital and land are owned by the free market, concentrated according to the concentration of laborers.

The recognition of a need to regulate a pure laissez faire system relating to the distribution of property is a recognition, at least partially of the abstract idea of the economic philosophy of distributism.

I think differentiating ourselves from laissez faire capitalists who want to paint every business and every success in a free market as a “capitalist” success. Recognize that it is not the strong form capitalist that is successful in regard to both labor and capital, it is distributism, or to use Christopher Ferrara’s definition, “Capitalism in the benign sense”.

Capitalism is private ownership of property by individuals, not any “market”. WHERE are you getting this definition? Who “concentrates” land and capital in Distributism, how is this attained?
Trust me, I am definitely differentiating myself from this mealy mouthed socialism painted up to sound like capitalism but called “Distributism”. And sorry, but every business success in a free market is a capitalist success. Whose else would it be?? More blather meaning nothing. PLease explain HOW Distributionism works, how you propose to make it exist, and who you propose “regulate” it.

 

[Cho]

Nobody “distributes” property… I just wish you would listen.

The word distributism refers to the state of the market, whether property is well distributed or concentrated. It has nothing to do with the action of distributing something.

It is about the people working personally for distributist solutions, encouraging others to do so, and working for distributist legislation.

If the people vote for a law against partial birth abortion, it is the people making that decision, not the government. If the people vote for regulations in the market, it is people making those decisions. We should drop the unrestrained capitalist rhetoric unless we believe there should be no regulation in the market.

WHAT is “Distributist legislation”? Who would be subject to it and who would create/enact/enforce it?

If people (“the people” is a lie, as there are always those who vote against) vote against partial lirth abortion, the majority who “wins” are voting for government thugs to punish those who choose to do that act on their behalf. They are actually depriving of others of the choice of sinning or not, eliminating God given free will and acting as proxy gods themselves. It is also the tyranny of the majority, the majority forcing the minority to do their will, pay the bills, live as lesser beings. It is living by the sword and that sword of state aggression can be wrested away by others and used against you, as the homosexuals and communists are now doing to Christians. When government controls information via the media, and controls mind and behavior through school conditioning it is easy for the government to manipulate “the people”. I haven’t noticed any “unrestrained capitalist” “rhetoric” on your part, so what’s the “we” stuff?
And yes. I understand the nature of the state, that the state is the enemy of capitalism (the right of the individual to own property (and control is the essence of ownership), that thr right to own property is essential to liberty and that there should be no government granting of privilege (regulation) in the market. It is the moral way, not the bullying, cowardly way.

 

[Cho]

Today is Encouragement Day :clapping::clapping::clapping:

**Would all Encouragers please show up an hour early in order go go over the names of those who have over concentrated. We have developed a new script that well help you to be more effective in your efforts to encourage a reduction concentration.

Please note those of you who have the names of the Concenstrators with over 70% of their base effecientcy levels report to room 121. We will discuss some flaws in the system .

We are having a rally at Bob’s Bar next Saturday to encourage new legislation that will force the “over 70%ers” to give up their excessive immoral concentrations. We will march in the streets for proper concentration levels!!!

Bring your copies of Das Capital to next Thursday’s meeting as we will address the only alternative if our concentration levels goals are not met by EOY

**

And down with The Great Satan, WalMart!

 

[Cho]

Know what, you’re a lost boy in tall weeds. Go do you some research about reality. What in the wide world of sports makes you think Distributism opposses a free market economy? Who’s axe are you grinding?

??? ridicule and smearing, always indicates the lack of argument. Two recurring words (in your “wide world of Distributionism”: Distributist euphemisms for state force, “encourage” and “regulate”.

 

[Jonatello]

WHAT is “Distributist legislation”? Who would be subject to it and who would create/enact/enforce it?

If people (“the people” is a lie, as there are always those who vote against) vote against partial lirth abortion, the majority who “wins” are voting for government thugs to punish those who choose to do that act on their behalf. They are actually depriving of others of the choice of sinning or not, eliminating God given free will and acting as proxy gods themselves. It is also the tyranny of the majority, the majority forcing the minority to do their will, pay the bills, live as lesser beings. It is living by the sword and that sword of state aggression can be wrested away by others and used against you, as the homosexuals and communists are now doing to Christians. When government controls information via the media, and controls mind and behavior through school conditioning it is easy for the government to manipulate “the people”. I haven’t noticed any “unrestrained capitalist” “rhetoric” on your part, so what’s the “we” stuff?
And yes. I understand the nature of the state, that the state is the enemy of capitalism (the right of the individual to own property (and control is the essence of ownership), that thr right to own property is essential to liberty and that there should be no government granting of privilege (regulation) in the market. It is the moral way, not the bullying, cowardly way.

In this world, there are other people. Every society, community, continent, region contains a whole bunch of other people. They will always be a factor in your life. They will always have wants and needs, opinions and ideas.

Force is an underlying foundation to any kind of law, whether the rulers are the majority (democracy) or the minority (dictatorship/oligarchy). The presence of force is a bigger factor in maintaining the latter. This should be obvious. To suggest that rule of the majority is uniquely “living by the sword” is just silly.

How does the owner of giant chunks of fertile land with wildlife, crops, and fresh water springs maintain private control over all of it when there are landless, hungry, thirsty people nearby? It’s the threat of force.

You will always have government. Anything the government controls is controlled by whatever people the government answers to.

Furthermore, this “minority/majority” dichotomy you speak of is wealth-based, not name-based or race-based or something else which could doom someone to wind up worse off than the majority. In your hypothetical scenario where the have-less majority demand more from the have-mores, the most likely scenario is that this “minority” would still be in a better situation than the “tyrannical” majority…the worst-case scenario (which I don’t even hear most normal socialists espouse) would be that “minority” members fall all the way down to the ranks of this “advantaged” majority. Such a scenario is an unrealistic strawman, but if the tyrannical majority has it so much better anyway, what are you worried about?

It’s like people seething with jealousy at those on welfare who “live fat off the rest of us and don’t have to work”…If its so good, nobody’s stopping you from joining them lol

 

[Jonatello]

WHAT is “Distributist legislation”? Who would be subject to it and who would create/enact/enforce it?.

the creation/enactment/enforcement of any legislation is the role of given society’s civic, governing vessel…whatever that may be. I think most people would suggest a democracy of some sort.

one possible example of distributist legislation might be anti-trust legislation

another possible example might be reforming typical sprawl-oriented zoning/development codes toward allowing more walkable, mixed-use, classic human-scaled livability in order to reinvigorate the local levels of society (community). this would promote 2 ideals of distributists:
1- Subsidiarity (decentralizing and minimizing government from the federal level thanks to a more responsive civic realm and community where you live)
2- Diffusion of markets/Diversity of opportunity: its been well documented how modern suburban zoning and development patterns favor the giants and kill the mom&pops.

 

[frankpearson]

WHAT is “Distributist legislation”? Who would be subject to it and who would create/enact/enforce it?

If people (“the people” is a lie, as there are always those who vote against) vote against partial lirth abortion, the majority who “wins” are voting for government thugs to punish those who choose to do that act on their behalf. They are actually depriving of others of the choice of sinning or not, eliminating God given free will and acting as proxy gods themselves. It is also the tyranny of the majority, the majority forcing the minority to do their will, pay the bills, live as lesser beings. It is living by the sword and that sword of state aggression can be wrested away by others and used against you, as the homosexuals and communists are now doing to Christians. When government controls information via the media, and controls mind and behavior through school conditioning it is easy for the government to manipulate “the people”. I haven’t noticed any “unrestrained capitalist” “rhetoric” on your part, so what’s the “we” stuff?
And yes. I understand the nature of the state, that the state is the enemy of capitalism (the right of the individual to own property (and control is the essence of ownership), that thr right to own property is essential to liberty and that there should be no government granting of privilege (regulation) in the market. It is the moral way, not the bullying, cowardly way.

Belloc and Chesterton believed that the state and concentrated private interest act very similar and work with and for one another. This is the famous “Hudge” and “Gudge” in “What’s Wrong with the World”.

I disagree with distributism’s detractors that it necessarily entails a great bureaucracy. I think that great bureaucracies often come from the lobbies of the owners of highly concentrated land and capital . The two types of entities are really siblings that work together; in a sense they form a single class.

I think you can have law that is handled according to the principle of subsidiarity at the lowest level effectively possible that could help to ensure a fair market with a minimal state.

 

[Cho]

Belloc and Chesterton believed that the state and concentrated private interest act very similar and work with and for one another. This is the famous “Hudge” and “Gudge” in “What’s Wrong with the World”.

I disagree with distributism’s detractors that it necessarily entails a great bureaucracy. I think that great bureaucracies often come from the lobbies of the owners of highly concentrated land and capital . The two types of entities are really siblings that work together; in a sense they form a single class.

I think you can have law that is handled according to the principle of subsidiarity at the lowest level effectively possible that could help to ensure a fair market with a minimal state.

The state is simply a political ruling class, those who obtain wealth by political means excusing aggression and violence. Private interests are those who obtain wealth through economic means or trade. I assume by “private concentrated interests” you mean the private rich and I am baffled why you don’t like to use the term (private) “rich” or “wealthy”. Once the rich begin buying favor of the ruling political class they become part of that class; their wealth and power increases at the expense of those who the state aggresses against for their benefit. The concept of “fairness” means different things to different people. From what I am seeing from Distributionists here “fairness” requires the elimination of the concept of “privately concentrated wealth” (the rich). and also the poor. The goal is a state enforced economic egalitarianism, achieved by regulating. This regulation is accomplished by a state regulating either economic activity or private property. This regulation eliminates the concept of private property altogether as this state assumes ownership/control and is therefore communistic, NOT capitalistic, which is simply private ownership of property.
Communistic arrangements are not NECESSARILY huge bureaucracies. They can be small. And they can be voluntary. I have no issue at all with those who choose to contract to live among like minded individuals in such schemes. That is the only way they can work or be moral is to make them voluntary and their political class subject to contractual obligations. They would have no monopoly on violence/aggression, no armies or police to aggress against the people. I disagree with this arrangement because egalitarianism discriminates against wealth creators and judges the rich as evil and the poor as necessarily victims. Without enough wealth creation and free market trade, this would only work with limited population sizes.

Blaming bureaucracy on the rich (the verbose description “owners of highly concentrated land and capital”, which appears to be an attempt to disguise communistic hatred of “the rich” and private property ownership in more “scientific” sounding jargon) does not explain the massive bureacracies of modern communistic states that HAD no rich except thoe relatively few in the political leadership who did not “whither away” and did not apply egalitarianism to themselves. State bureaucracy INCREASES as private property decreases.

 

[Cho]

the creation/enactment/enforcement of any legislation is the role of given society’s civic, governing vessel…whatever that may be. I think most people would suggest a democracy of some sort.

one possible example of distributist legislation might be anti-trust legislation

another possible example might be reforming typical sprawl-oriented zoning/development codes toward allowing more walkable, mixed-use, classic human-scaled livability in order to reinvigorate the local levels of society (community). this would promote 2 ideals of distributists:
1- Subsidiarity (decentralizing and minimizing government from the federal level thanks to a more responsive civic realm and community where you live)
2- Diffusion of markets/Diversity of opportunity: its been well documented how modern suburban zoning and development patterns favor the giants and kill the mom&pops.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, fine if you are in the mob, not so hot for the minority. It requires a political class supposedly elected by the mob to aggress against the minority on their behalf. There is no way to guarantee that the political class won’t act in their own interests once they have a monopoly on aggression…which is where we are now in the US.
Zoning laws are asserting control over property privately owned, a form of communism. Zoning to force some types of economic activity over others is economic planning, communism. Anti-trust legislation is protectionism of one group of people on behalf of another, it is corporatism.
Subsidiarity will require secession, something the central state is unlikely to allow (been tried once if you recall).
State protectionism and mercantilism is not free market capitalism. Mom and pops do not all go out of business because the big box stores kill them. I stopped shopping at many small local stores because they kept unpredictable hours, were not open when their signs said they were, they would ignore customers as they chewed the fat talking with someone often just visiting them (making customers wait…often unacknowledged), were rude/inconsiderate, had astronomically high prices because they had no competition. Small Mom and pops can be great, but not always.

 

[Cho]

In this world, there are other people. Every society, community, continent, region contains a whole bunch of other people. They will always be a factor in your life. They will always have wants and needs, opinions and ideas.

Force is an underlying foundation to any kind of law, whether the rulers are the majority (democracy) or the minority (dictatorship/oligarchy).

Not God’s law. In modern democratic states the rulers are the political class who have required the majority to be brainwashed in their centers and reinforce the conditioning through controlled information and trigger language. The majority thus behave as they are trained, think what they are told to think. The majority are not “rulers”.

The presence of force is a bigger factor in maintaining the latter. This should be obvious. To suggest that rule of the majority is uniquely “living by the sword” is just silly.

ALL state aggression is living by the sword. To think that it is somehow noble to aggress against/ loot our neighbors because we are in a majority is what is “silly”.

How does the owner of giant chunks of fertile land with wildlife, crops, and fresh water springs maintain private control over all of it when there are landless, hungry, thirsty people nearby? It’s the threat of force.

??? And usually STATE force.

You will always have government.

Slave mentality, and you love your chains. You see your chains as a good thing. You do not fear those who chain you, you fear those who might slip off their chains. You are like the crabs in the bucket that grab and pull back into the bucket the crabs who try to escape. You feel safer in bondage, believe that your owners work for you and protect you.

Anything the government controls is controlled by whatever people the government answers to.

And who does the US state answer to?? Not the majority, calls/emails were 100:1 against the TARP bailouts, union bailouts. “Our” government ignored us and are currently bailing out EUROPEAN banks and sticking their debt on us. Yep. They are sure scared of their slaves, the US state is.

Furthermore, this “minority/majority” dichotomy you speak of is wealth-based, not name-based or race-based or something else which could doom someone to wind up worse off than the majority.

It depends on what you are voting on. The demographics change.

In your hypothetical scenario where the have-less majority demand more from the have-mores, the most likely scenario is that this “minority” would still be in a better situation than the “tyrannical” majority…

Sooo, theft in that instance is OK??

.the worst-case scenario (which I don’t even hear most normal socialists espouse) would be that “minority” members fall all the way down to the ranks of this “advantaged” majority. Such a scenario is an unrealistic strawman, but if the tyrannical majority has it so much better anyway, what are you worried about?

It’s like people seething with jealousy at those on welfare who “live fat off the rest of us and don’t have to work”…If its so good, nobody’s stopping you from joining them lol

Because I am not a communist and I don’t believe that my neighbor should be forced to work for my benefit. That is slavery. It is aggression and robbing another of the fruits of his labor and it is wrong, whether done for fat cats or for “the poor”…".lol". How sad that you have fallen so far from Gods teaching that you embrace communism.