Is Distributism utopian?

[St_Francis]

Perhaps you have not read my other posts where i have proposed my own idea of communism.

Now, this is where you don’t understand what you are doing. Language is something we are *share, *in order to *communicate, *so when people make up their own definitions and start using them instead, communications are messed up.

For example, if I had a horse carriage and tried to sell it as a car. It has four wheels, so it fits MY definition of a car, why can’t I sell it as a car?

---

Additionally, the system you propose is still absurd, since no saint would impose or maintain a system which the Catholic Church has condemned.

And the Church condemned it because it is inherently bad because it goes against the reality of human nature and human dignity.

Yes, an ideal world run by saints does sound loverly, but that’s all it is: a fantasy: it runs counter to reality. We cannot live as if a miracle will happen.

 

[Cho]

I see government as a tool as I see everything to be a tool for our main purpose of salvation.

It is all in the mind. What people picture the word to be in their mind as they associate the word. I was simply focusing on the MEANING of the word itself. Communism. I was not talking about the horrors and acts of evil that happened. To be honest, and this is just my opinion, that communism to me really is good. If it is runned by good people like saints, it is heavenly. I like the idea of egalitarian society where everybody is equally wealthy. . Perhaps you have not read my other posts where i have proposed my own idea of communism. Here it is, just for you: * TALENTS OF THE PEOPLE, ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE, PROFESSION FOR THE PEOPLE GIVEN FREELY COMING FROM THEIR HEART WILL BE RECIPROCATED WITH PEOPLE’S TALENTS, ACTIONS AND PROFESSIONS. THIS WILL BE UNDER A NON MONETARY SYSTEM. COMMUNITIES WOULD BE MODELED LIKE MONASTERIES. EVERYONE IS BLESSED WITH TALENTS. NO ONE WOULD BE SELFISH AND LAZY. ANYONE WHO CAN’T PHYSICALLY WORK HAVE OTHER NON PHYSICAL TALENTS TO OFFER AND ANYONE WHO IS SICK AND ILL, WILL BE TAKEN CARED OF NOT SHUNNED AWAY, NEGLECTED, PUSHED AWAY, ABANDONED. HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS FREE. LET’S PRAY THAT THIS WILL COME TRUE SOON."]* conceptually good but i don’t know how successful it would be when it is actually practiced.

On other things, Judas Thaddeus or Simply St Jude. We have a little shrine of him at Church and I always pray to him every time I am in desperate need. And yes, it took me a while to get used to saying St Jude without thinking of Judas Escariot. I do, however, feel sorry for Judas. I believe he got possessed by the devil. He just didn’t know what to do and forgot that God is merciful.

i wanna say some more and hammer my point but im getting sleepy… maybe next time. god bless!

People are not saints, the worst will rise to the top because only they are ruthless enough to do whatever it takes to get there, human nature tainted with original sin is to look out for their own interests, profit is not an evil thing. Maybe all of mankind will get saintly during your lifetime and “share everything”, but I doubt it. Pointing guns at people and FORCING them to “share” is incredibly evil, and we have seen how that works out. Eggs, omelets, that sort of thing. Communism requires deception and aggression to bring into being. It is a great evil. And BTW, I know people who CHOOSE to not work. One had a job and simply stopped going to work. They called and begged her to come to work and she would not get out of bed and was fired. Her mother is currently working on getting her on disability. I know another man who left his wife and 5 kids to pursue the romantic life of a drifter. Left his job and family, the wife not even having a drivers license or high school diploma.

 

[Cho]

je333;8558527:

Yes, it is. While you post dictionary definitions of communism that are compatible with Catholicism (one can fairly describe certain religious communities as communes), you seem to be unwilling to admit that the common usage admits of only one definition.

May I suggest that in the future that you use qualifiers? I have a friend who approves of “Christian Communism”, but he never, never

uses just the word “communism” because it is, all by itself, a bad word.

Evil, in point of fact. Communism is responsible for one quarter of a billion deaths in the 20th century, as well as the religious persecution of Catholics across nearly one fifth of the world.

I never posted that.

 

[Cho]

I just found this thread and don’t know if my point has been made, but here goes. It seems that there is a misunderstanding of what distributism is. This topic was covered in EWTN’s G.K. Chesterton: Apostle of Common Sense. As I recall, under distributism, wealth * is more distributed rather than more concentrated. This does not* mean that the government confiscates from the wealthy and doles it out to the poor. Much like home ownership is “distributed” widely, other forms of property [e.g., stocks, bonds] would be also. In this way, wealth would serve the people rather than the people serving wealth.

Ironically, this would have been accomplished if workers were allowed to invest their social security contributions [and their employer’s contributions] into private accounts that they control rather than the government. Twelve percent compounded over a working life amounts to a lot even if invested in a modest savings account. When the worker retires, he could draw on it at the same rate social security pays and never exhaust the principle. Or he could draw it out at some other rate.

I’ve heard all the usual arguments against this, so save your breath. A lot of people complain about large corporations and the “rich” controlling so much wealth, but few complain about the government controlling so much. Also, once stock ownership of large corporations is in the hands of a lot of people, that ownership will be serving the many rather than the few.

I have no quibble with wide distribution of wealth, the argument here is how to achieve it. You seem to have a good grasp on the real problem, state confiscation of wealth. One of my favorite cons is our local school district. They do not pay into Soc. Sec. are allowed to opt out (as that is for the Great Unwashed) and invest their contributions. The thing is, their fund lost their shirt in the recent market crashes and guess what? They get to make it up through the taxpayers. How great is that? We have people who owned their own homes to be safe for retirement being taxed out of them so the School district brainwashers can have theirs! Whatta country!

 

[Cho]

Nope. Paying any amount of tax is a level of slavery (it is not voluntary!).
No taxation of any kind . . . no government. And government is necessary.
It is a necessary evil, yes.

At least we are getting somewhere. You advocate an ideal level of slavery because you are willing to embrace evil because you believe that it protects you. Yes, people do tend to protect their property so I can see your logic here. The state class does not value us as property, however…even as chattel slaves. We are held in contempt and are protected as long as we are useful to them. I can’t see it squaring with Christianity, abdicating God given free will in order to be protected by an admittedly evil entity. But having this opinion, being willing to serve evil IS an exercise of free will itself, a choice. But part of that evil is participating in forcing OTHERS to serve evil, and that is immoral.

They can. I was not denying that. What you fail to admit is that one of those individuals may be lying, or may cheat.
And what happens if the insurance company refuses to pay up?

The company will go bankrupt as no one will deal with them.

Wrong.

Why would you deal with a company that was seen as not providing contracted service?? I certainly would not.

I am indeed unique. My particular expression of the idea may very well be unique. The idea, however, is not. I suspect that if you polled the group and asked how many of them believe that some level of government, that imposes some level of taxation is necessary, you’d find that I am in the majority.

LOL. I do not dispute that sad fact. The majority embraces evil and immorality as necessary. But that is not an argument for its being righteous or the choice God wants us to make. Because you have a lot of company choosing evil and immorality is not an argument in favor of it.

As a classical liberal, I tend towards minimizing the level of slavery, but I do not believe that it can be reduced to zero.

Perhaps not, but that does not give us leave to CHOOSE it, accept it as NECESSARY!

Indeed, which is the lesson we take from Church history. The Church demonstrated the serious risk of allowing itself to become not just the Church, but also a political power.

Yes, and we see where that has led.

Hence “FREEDOM”, and the ability to push back.

But no freedom for the “necessary” level of slaves, but you don‘t plan on being one of those, right? That would be for suckers. The freedom and ability to push back appear to be increasingly limited to the state class, whose evil you seek to harness. Democracy is the great fiction whereby one half of the population seeks to live at the expense of the other (Bastiat? Lord Acton?).

 

[Cho]

So, any reproof of you makes the reprover infinitely arrogant? We need a whole new word, one way WAY past “defensive” to define your response here!
I don’t need to be an authority, or even a Good Christian in order to reprove you.
Feel free to reprove me if you wish. If you feel that I’ve been uncharitable or disrespectful, then point it out.

When your ‘reproof” is presented as being “Christian” (and the insinuation being that I am not) and is not based in fact it is simply an attempt to bolster a lame argument by intimidation and smear.

No, it isn’t. Calling it election tampering is a lie, and that is where I will again reprove you. If I stick a gun in your back and tell you how to vote, that is election tampering. If I replace a box of ballots with a box I filled with ballots that register votes for my candidate, that is election tampering. If I take large and visible arms down to a polling place, then loudly proclaim that you’d just better vote for my candidate or else! . . . that is election tampering.

And controlling information available to the public, lying about a candidate, lying about his poll and election results to skew opinion and prevent people from considering him as a candidate IS election tampering. You disagree and think that this is righteous and acceptable behavior on the part of the MSM who are LICENSED by the state and that is your right. But your smear that I am not Christian is despicable…and I post that in the most LOVING Christian “reproof”!

You should also consider that the media may not report what you believe to be the truth, but that may be because what you believe to be the truth may not in fact be the truth.

If you have proof that anything I have posted about Ron Paul is untrue , out with it. Truth DOES exist, facts do exist and the media has a duty to report accurately when it is not presented as opinion. This is truly an odious comment to post unsupported.

A reporter who reports on one candidate, but not another, is not tampering with an election. A reporter is free to choose what they will report on, and when they will report. That is called “freedom”, and is what a free press does. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it immoral or illegal, and it certainly doesn’t make it “election tampering”.

Sorry, reporters and those who pay them do NOT have the right to mold opinion (mislead) by misrepresenting truth in order to get their man elected. And that has been the case for a very long time. We are ALL supposed to speak truth, be honest and above board. I cannot believe that you are actually supporting the right of the media to lie to the people and omit information that the people have a right to know germane to the leadership of the country. It IS immoral and evil to lie and to deceive. But you are down with that. Some classical liberal.

What lies?

runronpaul.com/mainstream-media/fox-exposed-undenialable-proof-of-media-bias-against-ron-paul/
runronpaul.com/mainstream-media/ron-paul-is-winning-straw-polls-quick-discredit-straw-polls/
runronpaul.com/mainstream-media/poll-is-ron-paul-being-ignored-by-the-media-proof-the-whole-world-knows-it/
thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9419-study-confirms-ron-paul-blacked-out-by-media

When a reporter doesn’t report on what you want them to, that is not a lie, it is just an omission. By the logic of finite time and space, all reporters omit an infinite amount of information, choosing to report on what they think their audience will want to read or hear about. It is, after all, their paper. They have the right to choose what gets printed in it, so long as they don’t engage in slander.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this moral view from someone who posits an “acceptable level” of state slavery.

After a few exchanges with you, it is clear that at best my responses to you simply tempt you to anger. We don’t seem to be engaging constructively. I’m going to bow out and stop responding to you in order to avoid providing that temptation.

I am overwhelmed at this example of “Christian love”, saving from me from the temptation of righteous anger at your immorality. LOL! You have an exaggerated opinion of your impact. Just because I don’t decorate my posts with Christian qualifiers and attempt to clothe immoral positions as Christian, the cyber equivalent of standing on street corners renting my clothing advertising my piety, makes me no less Christian. This is a waste of time however and I do try to not waste time with overt embracers of evil. Jesus was SO mean to chase the money changers from the Temple…where was the love and acceptance of the inevitable?? But we are at the pearls before swine point so I agree.

 

[David_Castlen]

I see government as a tool as I see everything to be a tool for our main purpose of salvation.

It is all in the mind. What people picture the word to be in their mind as they associate the word. I was simply focusing on the MEANING of the word itself. Communism. I was not talking about the horrors and acts of evil that happened. To be honest, and this is just my opinion, that communism to me really is good. If it is runned by good people like saints, it is heavenly. I like the idea of egalitarian society where everybody is equally wealthy. . Perhaps you have not read my other posts where i have proposed my own idea of communism. Here it is, just for you: * TALENTS OF THE PEOPLE, ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE, PROFESSION FOR THE PEOPLE GIVEN FREELY COMING FROM THEIR HEART WILL BE RECIPROCATED WITH PEOPLE’S TALENTS, ACTIONS AND PROFESSIONS. THIS WILL BE UNDER A NON MONETARY SYSTEM. COMMUNITIES WOULD BE MODELED LIKE MONASTERIES. EVERYONE IS BLESSED WITH TALENTS. NO ONE WOULD BE SELFISH AND LAZY. ANYONE WHO CAN’T PHYSICALLY WORK HAVE OTHER NON PHYSICAL TALENTS TO OFFER AND ANYONE WHO IS SICK AND ILL, WILL BE TAKEN CARED OF NOT SHUNNED AWAY, NEGLECTED, PUSHED AWAY, ABANDONED. HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS FREE. LET’S PRAY THAT THIS WILL COME TRUE SOON."]* conceptually good but i don’t know how successful it would be when it is actually practiced.

Like wow man like man like how do you like propose dude to make sure like no dude takes from another dude’s and like wow like who dedides the dudes that would grow the food like who would, dude, distribute it to the other dudes like how do you like know like who are the cool dudes that can do the distribution man and, dude, what dudes will do the making like like like don’t bogart that food dude like how do dudes keep other dudes from bogarting?

 

[frankpearson]

Since two Distributists have made the point that their ideology is about the concentration of wealth, then being a “for profit” business is not dispositive in regards to defining an entity as properly distributist or not. IOW, Any sufficiently large concentration of wealth is in violation of Distributist principles.

The Catholic Church is one of the largest corporate entities in the world. The largest, richest diocese in the Catholic church owns enough capital, outright, to fall well within the high end of any reasonable Distributist definition of “too big.”

So, will the Catholic Church, or certain (or perhaps all) dioceses be held in violation of Distributist principles? Or will license (exception or permission) be granted to entities that the Distributists are ideologically supportive of?
.

If I am one of those two you have said pointed out that their ideology is about concentration of wealth you are misrepresenting me.

I have said distributism is quite as a matter of fact about the concentration of “land and capital” not wealth. It is not about money, it is about economic rent on productive capacity. Since the Church is not a for profit capitalist enterprise, they are not owning the means of production that someone else labors at.

This is an important point, because your method of argumentation is in splitting hairs in definition. I have noticed many of these mistakes, but I personally do not believe that this is a proper form of inclusive argumentation, so I have simply let them all slide. This however, was egregious.

 

[je333]

meme1961;8562894:

I never posted that.

i never posted this.

 

[je333]

Like wow man like man like how do you like propose dude to make sure like no dude takes from another dude’s and like wow like who dedides the dudes that would grow the food like who would, dude, distribute it to the other dudes like how do you like know like who are the cool dudes that can do the distribution man and, dude, what dudes will do the making like like like don’t bogart that food dude like how do dudes keep other dudes from bogarting?

:

confused?? :consoleray my dear brother for wisdom to understand.

 

[je333]

Now, this is where you don’t understand what you are doing. Language is something we are *share, *in order to *communicate, *so when people make up their own definitions and start using them instead, communications are messed up.

For example, if I had a horse carriage and tried to sell it as a car. It has four wheels, so it fits MY definition of a car, why can’t I sell it as a car?

---

Additionally, the system you propose is still absurd, since no saint would impose or maintain a system which the Catholic Church has condemned.

And the Church condemned it because it is inherently bad because it goes against the reality of human nature and human dignity.

Yes, an ideal world run by saints does sound loverly, but that’s all it is: a fantasy: it runs counter to reality. We cannot live as if a miracle will happen.

I believe I know what I am talking about. John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” People didn’t know what Jesus was saying.

A fanstasy? It runs counter to reality? We cannot live as if a miracle will happen? :console::console::console: Does heaven on earth ring a bell? Do you believe in heaven my brother?

 

[je333]

People are not saints, the worst will rise to the top because only they are ruthless enough to do whatever it takes to get there, human nature tainted with original sin is to look out for their own interests, profit is not an evil thing. Maybe all of mankind will get saintly during your lifetime and “share everything”, but I doubt it. Pointing guns at people and FORCING them to “share” is incredibly evil, and we have seen how that works out. Eggs, omelets, that sort of thing. Communism requires deception and aggression to bring into being. It is a great evil. And BTW, I know people who CHOOSE to not work. One had a job and simply stopped going to work. They called and begged her to come to work and she would not get out of bed and was fired. Her mother is currently working on getting her on disability. I know another man who left his wife and 5 kids to pursue the romantic life of a drifter. Left his job and family, the wife not even having a drivers license or high school diploma.

My dear brother, where have you been hanging around to say that people are not saints? People are called to be saints. As a matter of fact there are many living saints on Earth now(go to religious communities and monasteries and you’ll meet some of them). We are all children of God.

 

[David_Castlen]

:

confused?? :consoleray my dear brother for wisdom to understand.

I will never be able to understand when people advocate taking others’ property and a system guaranteed to hurt people and create envy where the evil ones make it to the top. Read Hayak.

 

[David_Castlen]

My dear brother, where have you been hanging around to say that people are not saints? People are called to be saints. As a matter of fact there are many living saints on Earth now(go to religious communities and monasteries and you’ll meet some of them). We are all children of God.

All (which means far more than most in this context) have sinned and fallen short the glory of God. Yes, most people are NOT saints; have you been outside in the last couple of days or do you know any asst. coaches at Penn St., or have you heard of any parents who have killed their children, have you heard of Pol Pot, or a Cuban Dictator, or read about the 7-11 robbed last night, or a couple of abortions done over the last few weeks, maybe you have not had the pleasure of doing business with a not so honest customer or supplier, the court systems are over booked, the jails ore undersized with real real crimianal need I go further? Reality, is hard to accept; easy to see. May I suggest you visit some prisons. Go everyday for about a week. You will come back with a thank heaven these guys are still inside. I dare you to give all the prisoners your name and telephone number. And wife abuse!!! Oh my goodness! everyday everyday they get beat and beat bad…!!! Now if you do not have a wife and or children you might have the guts to give your name and address to these fine saints in prison; but may I suggest, think about it real hard.

 

[Cho]

Like wow man like man like how do you like propose dude to make sure like no dude takes from another dude’s and like wow like who dedides the dudes that would grow the food like who would, dude, distribute it to the other dudes like how do you like know like who are the cool dudes that can do the distribution man and, dude, what dudes will do the making like like like don’t bogart that food dude like how do dudes keep other dudes from bogarting?

David, your problem is you have no wisdom. Any real Christian knows your just have to love your brother and he will be inspired to share and be Good. I shall pray that the scales fall from your eyes for you have no wisdom because you believe in private property.

 

[St_Francis]

I believe I know what I am talking about. John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” People didn’t know what Jesus was saying.

A fanstasy? It runs counter to reality? We cannot live as if a miracle will happen? :console::console::console: Does heaven on earth ring a bell? Do you believe in heaven my brother?

The Catholic Church, of which you claim to be a member, condemns communism.

 

[Cho]

I believe I know what I am talking about. John 2:19 “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” People didn’t know what Jesus was saying.

A fanstasy? It runs counter to reality? We cannot live as if a miracle will happen? :console::console::console: Does heaven on earth ring a bell? Do you believe in heaven my brother?

Heres’ an article for you, comrade.
The Equality Racket
lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan196.html

 

[Jonatello]

If I am one of those two you have said pointed out that their ideology is about concentration of wealth you are misrepresenting me.

I have said distributism is quite as a matter of fact about the concentration of “land and capital” not wealth. It is not about money, it is about economic rent on productive capacity. Since the Church is not a for profit capitalist enterprise, they are not owning the means of production that someone else labors at.

This is an important point, because your method of argumentation is in splitting hairs in definition. I have noticed many of these mistakes, but I personally do not believe that this is a proper form of inclusive argumentation, so I have simply let them all slide. This however, was egregious.

important distinction, but i would still want to point out that these 3 things:

concentration of wealth
concentration of productive capital
concentration of power

go hand-in-hand and reinforce each other in an anarchist market

 

[Jonatello]

Now, this is where you don’t understand what you are doing. Language is something we are *share, *in order to *communicate, *so when people make up their own definitions and start using them instead, communications are messed up.

For example, if I had a horse carriage and tried to sell it as a car. It has four wheels, so it fits MY definition of a car, why can’t I sell it as a car?

---

Additionally, the system you propose is still absurd, since no saint would impose or maintain a system which the Catholic Church has condemned.

And the Church condemned it because it is inherently bad because it goes against the reality of human nature and human dignity.

Yes, an ideal world run by saints does sound loverly, but that’s all it is: a fantasy: it runs counter to reality. We cannot live as if a miracle will happen.

again, i respect your desire to keep the definitions of words intact in the interest of clarity, but what you’re advocating here is the opposite:

you’re telling people to turn away from the actual clinical definition of the word “communism” in favor of using it only to refer to certain famous ASSOCIATIONS people have with that word.

this is not like calling a carriage a car. Its like demanding the term “car” refer only to cars which contain uniquely-Ford-like attributes.

Car is a broader term than Model-T or Ford.

Communism is a broader term than Marxism or Maoism.

Merriam-Webster’s primary definition of communism is this:

1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
or
1b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

…therefore, any discussion of anything fitting the above definition would be called “communism”…or “commune + ism”

this is important so we don’t confuse impressions/associations/experiences with concepts.

then, further down, there is definition 2, which specifies “capitalized” Communism as
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

or

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

or

c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

or

d : communist systems collectively

 

[Cho]

important distinction, but i would still want to point out that these 3 things:

concentration of wealth
concentration of productive capital
concentration of power

go hand-in-hand and reinforce each other in an anarchist market

What anarchist market are you referring to?? Giving a group of people a monopoly on the right to lie, steal and aggress against the rest of the people lerads to all of those things. No “anarchist market” (an attempt to disparage free market economics??) does.