Is Distributism utopian?

[David_Castlen]

Abu,

Thank you for an excellent response. But, goodness gracious doesn’t it all boil down to:

“Thou shalt not steal”. What is that old saying:

If you are not liberal when you are young you probably have no heart,
If you are liberal when you are old you probably have no brain.

I don’t think it is a lack of brain. I think it is either envy or just lazy, or a combination of the two and looking for a fight. Or maybe these guys have never really spent time in business.

I have a friend that is well versed in the Classics. He believes education is not only ineffective (today) but it is extremely immoral. Here is an example, socialism is not just taught it is pushed… kids are taught to …oh I am ranting

 

[David_Castlen]

:hug3::hug3::hug3:

X8

 

[St_Francis]

David, Cho, Meme,
I have spent the past few days doing research… I sure do appreciate your contributions in this thread. I started out thinking that a lot of my ideas occurred in distributism, but not really having a coherent idea of what it was all about. As a result of having to research to answer your questions and challenges, I have had to learn a lot about it, and I see it more clearly now, altho I still have a lot to learn.

The main thing I have discovered is that distributism is not a system the way socialism and communism are. What it is is what would happen if everyone were very thoughtful, moral, and not focused on maximizing profit and possessions.

What do I see wrong with other schools of thought? Well, I think that everyone sees that there is a problem. I see the problem as being the intertwining of government and business. But the solutions offered consist of getting rid of one or the other. The economic left wants to get rid of business, and the economic right wants to get rid of government.

But I still see the problem as being that of concentration of power. Socialism concentrates the power in the hands of a few government officials; free-marketry, whether anarchic or limited-government, concentrates the power in the hands of a few businesses.

The entire spectrum is completely focused on humans as economic units, mostly completely interchangeable. Workers, consumers, owners, the vast majority are simply cogs in a gigantic machine which is grinding our humanity out of us.*

As a Catholic, and as a human being, I cannot desire, endorse, condone, or support anything else I have read about. Distributism answers all the problems I see with our current system, and has the checks in place to avoid many problems. It will not be perfect, being peopled with, well, people, but it will minimize certain destructive tendencies, and provide the potential for maximizing growth in individuals by creating a more human environment.

Distributism is, as I said at the beginning of this thread, based on human nature and what works best for it. That is probably why it looks good to me, but also why it is different from other proposed systems, which come up with something which would only work if people were some other sort of being than they are.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #361
Distributism….is what would happen if everyone were very thoughtful, moral, and not focused on maximizing profit and possessions.

In short, a world without Original Sin and with fantasy people – such a mirage is not the real world. But there is no reason why pockets of distributism could not work successfully, and some do (post #357).
It is precisely why Pope benedict XVI affirmed that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

the economic right wants to get rid of government
free-marketry, whether anarchic or limited-government, concentrates the power in the hands of a few businesses.

The fantasy has to continue with governments being manipulated by a “few businesses” because of “anarchic” non-rule. Why aren’t those who are supposed to “want to get rid of government” quoted?

So the popes must be wrong and be ignored as they affirm the “business economy”, “market economy” or simply "free economy”, and the whole Catholic heritage of free enterprise developed by the Late Catholic Scholastics. Instead it is all junk.

Astute readers will readily see that it is true that it is people that cheat, swindle, are greedy, and that morals maketh the man. They will also see that it is the failure of the people in governments when they finagle with free enterprise so that they distort the free exchange of goods and services instead of making sensible laws which curtail monopolies and punish those who commit crimes in free enterprise, and laws that encourage the sensible exercise of free enterprise.

 

[je333]

X8

:hug1::flowers:

 

[David_Castlen]

David, Cho, Meme,

Little words making major differences:
I have spent the past few days doing research… I sure do appreciate your contributions in this thread. I started out thinking that a lot of my ideas occurred in distributism, but not really having a coherent idea of what it was all about. As a result of having to research to answer your questions and challenges, I have had to learn a lot about it, and I see it more clearly now, altho I still have a lot to learn.

The main thing I have discovered is that distributism is not a system the way socialism and communism are. What it is is what would happen if everyone were very thoughtful, moral, and not focused on maximizing profit and possessions.

**So, are you proposing that Distributism can not work. That I do agree. Surely, you know we will never rid ourselves of thoughless, immoral, people?. “We have all sinned and fallen short”… This fact is one reason that a free market works so well.

What, is wrong with maximizing profits? Someone in this blog help! I have read, I think CA or RRNV, that maximizing profits is a must for a succesful business. St. Francis, what if Jim the store owner decided not to maximize profits. One day he comes to work and says to the staff, “Look guys I know some of you thought you were gong to get raises and be promoted to the new store, but I have decided not to maximize profits and will not open the new store. And by the way, we will not be hiring more as we are not going to expand.”… St. Francis, if you want to help the poor; I suggest start with ENCOURAGING business owners to maximize their profits. I would also remind you that work is a virtue.**

What do I see wrong with other schools of thought? Well, I think that everyone sees that there is a problem.

If you are going to be logical, you must first ask; what is the objective? And I ask you in a discussion of an economic system, what is the final objective of the system? The final objective is the effecent distribution of goods and services. You must answer this first before addressing the other issues.

I see the problem as being the intertwining of government and business.

What reduces the effectioncy of the distribution of goods and servies? I would agree one of the biggest problems is (in fact) government interference.

But the solutions offered consist of getting rid of one or the other. The economic left wants to get rid of business, and the economic right wants to get rid of government.

NO! A typical free market assumes methods of amerliorating contract disputes whether via a government judicial system or an agreed upon intermediary. Some form of “government” must be incorporated to give order; BUT not to tell a business what to produce and how much.

But I still see the problem as being that of concentration of power. Socialism concentrates the power in the hands of a few government officials; free-marketry, whether anarchic or limited-government, concentrates the power in the hands of a few businesses.

NO How do you come that conclusion. Most businesses are NOT in the hands of a few. NO. When there are enterprises that are in the hands of a few, typically, that is because the product produced requires a very large amount of capital and a LONG time to recover cost. Often these businesses loose money intermittently and the cost is astronomical. Would you suggest that the mining industry be small, or the steal manufacturing, or chemical industry?

Here is a second reason that big is often good: innovation. St. Francis, if you are able to get Milk for 4 cents a gallon would you prefer to buy it at the old $4? Obviosly, not. but in order to get it, it is sold by one manufacturor. One who discovered a methold that took him years to develop and billions of capital to build a processsing plant. What in the world is wrong with him.

The entire spectrum is completely focused on humans as economic units, mostly completely interchangeable. Workers, consumers, owners, the vast majority are simply cogs in a gigantic machine which is grinding our humanity out of us.*

No no no … The system has nothing to do with morality, morality has to do with people. People can view others as automotons if they choose or as people with dignity. It has nothing to do with a system. Virtue does not depend on a system, virtue depends on a heart. Read Von Mises’ Human Action.

As a Catholic, and as a human being, I cannot desire, endorse, condone, or support anything else I have read about. Distributism answers all the problems I see with our current system, and has the checks in place to avoid many problems.

What are those checks???

The heart of a free system is based on the rights of man; Distributism takes from the rights of man

and what works best for it. That is probably why it looks good to me, but also why it is different from other proposed systems, which come up with something which would only work if people were some other sort of being than they are.
St. Francis, what you are proposing is akin to a child that does not find comfort in the thought that the family pig will be eaton tonight. (First mistake: naming the pig.). So the child does not eat the pig or any meat the rest of his life. People call him a vegetarian, but he insist that he is a non-meat eator. He says, "I am not like those immoral meat eators nor am I like those sillly vegetarians; I just have a better alternative than the other two.

You can put lip-stick on a Distributiest, but it is still…

 

[frankpearson]

But I still see the problem as being that of concentration of power. Socialism concentrates the power in the hands of a few government officials; free-marketry, whether anarchic or limited-government, concentrates the power in the hands of a few businesses.

The entire spectrum is completely focused on humans as economic units, mostly completely interchangeable. Workers, consumers, owners, the vast majority are simply cogs in a gigantic machine which is grinding our humanity out of us.*

Great comment. I agree entirely!

This is a first that Catholics of the modern age are now turning with love to Laissez Faire. I think there is a campaign in hell that is focusing upon our souls.

When Belloc lived, he stated that one third of the people of London were indigent.

To be certain, there are different people who approach the way distributism should be implemented differently. Many think distributists should only work toward the system in the market. I believe that we have sanctified and in some senses required exploitation with our capitalist/socialist hybrid state.

Who does the redistributing?

(1) I think we need to ensure that monopoly and cartel legislation is enforced and also look to what we consider monopolistic. Victory1 and Victory2 (Wal-Mart and Target) does not represent the “vast number of firms” required for a functioning market.

(2) I also think we need to actively work to curtail regulation on starting a new business. It can cost as much as 1 million dollars to get your first bottle of beer on the shelves if you want to start a small local micro-brewery.

(3) I think we need to make coop ownership more advantageous, and discourage economic rent from within our current system. I think that is required for the “vast number of firms” in a market.

I do not think there should be an oversight agency. Nobody has ever said that. I think in the long run, as our markets become more and more free markets, we should consider the legality of economic rent in the question of whether or not a contract for employment is valid.

 

[David_Castlen]

Frankperson,

Do you view an economic system as the major conduit to an individual’s virtue? secondary, tirsiary (spelling)?

Put another, way, where does virtue (that rest in a person) come from?

Perhaps, we should begin with what we mean by “economic system” and “virtue”?

 

[frankpearson]

The fundamental economic laws which enable great productivity increases and wealth creation, were discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics and endorsed by the Catholic Church, and economics involves the activities of fallen individuals who need the moral teaching of Christ’s Church. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value. For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them “as the first real economists.” (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).The free enterprise economy consists of voluntary property exchanges.

As Fr James V Schall, S.J., in Does Catholicism Still Exist?, Alba House 1994, p 184-185, explains:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

It is people, not free enterprise, that engage in immoral practices. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and to prevent monopolies. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West.
“Those who care to support locally based and smaller-scale agriculture have already been doing so for two decades now by means of community-supported agriculture, which is booming. On a purely voluntary basis, people who wish to support local agriculture pay several hundred dollars at the beginning of the year to provide the farmer with the capital he needs; they then receive locally grown produce for the rest of the year. The organizers of this movement, rather than wasting their time and ours complaining about the need for state intervention, actually did something: they put together a voluntary program that has enjoyed considerable success across the country. Perhaps, if distributists feel as strongly about their position as they claim, this example can provide a model of how their time might be better spent.”
*What’s Wrong with “Distributism” *
Mises Daily: Sunday, October 06, 2002 by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
mises.org/daily/1062

Free enterprise has enabled untold millions to rise above the poverty level and enjoy a far higher standard of living.

I agree with everything you quoted. Distributists do believe truly in a free market. But you have to notice that regulation is enforcing child protection laws and opposing the development and proliferation of monopoly. You are closer to distributism than you think.

 

[St_Francis]

In short, a world without Original Sin and with fantasy people – such a mirage is not the real world.

Not at all! One of the goals of distributism, guilds, is a response to the understanding that men suffer from original sin.

In what way does free market anarchy protect against those me who feel the effects of orignal sin most strongly?

[quoye]But there is no reason why pockets of distributism could not work successfully, and some do (post #357).
And in fact, this is precisely the first step the distributists want to take. They see distributism as a goal to work towards rather than something to be imposed.

It is precisely why Pope benedict XVI affirmed that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

And many popes have written of the dangers of unfettered capitalism, the “greed of unchecked competition,” as Pope Leo XIII put it in Rerum Novarum (p. 3).

And with regard to what Pope Benedict wrote, how are we to call individuals to account in an overly corporatized society? If GM, that legal corporate person with no conscience to appeal to, commits some act, it cannot be laid on the person(s) who made the decision because he or they is or are merely cogs in a machine which is set up to consider only the bottom line. Any poor decisions are mitigates only by that consideration.

And one cannot ignore Pope Benedict’s recent thoughts about an international political entity which would regulate the affairs of transnational corporations and international interchanges.

The fantasy has to continue with governments being manipulated by a “few businesses” because of “anarchic” non-rule.

What do you mean by this? I’ll ignore the last bit, which is internally contradictory, and just say that in the US, yes, governments at all levels do things which are not necessarily for the good of the community at the behest of businesses. And they do the same for unions, and the same for the poor.

Why aren’t those who are supposed to “want to get rid of government” quoted?

Gee, all you have to do is to read the comments by David and Cho in this thread.

So the popes must be wrong and be ignored as they affirm the “business economy”, “market economy” or simply "free economy”,

And the calls of two popes for international oversight?

and the whole Catholic heritage of free enterprise developed by the Late Catholic Scholastics. Instead it is all junk.

The writings of Pope Leo XIII were what distributism is based on; I hardly think that Catholic teaching has been ignored.

What is it about lots of emerging small businesses that scares you so much?

Astute readers will readily see that it is true that it is people that cheat, swindle, are greedy, and that morals maketh the man. They will also see that it is the failure of the people in governments when they finagle with free enterprise so that they distort the free exchange of goods and services instead of making sensible laws which curtail monopolies and punish those who commit crimes in free enterprise, and laws that encourage the sensible exercise of free enterprise.

I really don’t see distributism as being inimical to either Catholic teaching or free enterprise–in fact, distributism widens the scope of free enterprise.

From Rerum Novarum, p. 13:*Now, in no other way can a father effect this **except by the ownership of productive property, **which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.

 

[St_Francis]

David_Castlen:
I would love to respond to your points, but since you included them in the quotes material, it is very difficult for me to do so. Could it be that you have so lite repsct for your points that you want to make it difficult for people to respond?

 

[St_Francis]

*To be certain, there are different people who approach the way distributism should be implemented differently. *Many think distributists should only work toward the system in the market. *. *

I can see room for a break-up of large corporations by selling divisions, but I also know that I have a tendency towards impatience which the Church does not seem to advocate. The early social justice writings encouraged the formation of helpful workers’ organizations by the workers themselves rather than by governmental fiat, and so I think that possibly the break-up of large corporations may end up occurring differently, possibly through being taken over.

[quoye]I believe that we have sanctified and in some senses required exploitation with our capitalist/socialist hybrid state.
I think the soullessness of the corporate structure left unchecked leads to exploitation as well. Look at what happened during the industrial revolution: the rich just did their thing with capital and treated the workers abominably.

Who does the redistributing?

I don’t think that “redistribution” in the way we normally think about it, take from the rich to give to the poor, is in any way a necessary component of distributism.

(1) I think we need to ensure that monopoly and cartel legislation is enforced and also look to what we consider monopolistic. *Victory1 and Victory2 (Wal-Mart and Target) does not represent the “vast number of firms” required for a functioning market. *

This is what I was talking about above.

(2) I also think we need to actively work to curtail regulation on starting a new business. *It can cost as much as 1 million dollars to get your first bottle of beer on the shelves if you want to start a small local micro-brewery. *

I soooo agree! And I imagine that the free-market advocates would also agree.

(3) I think we need to make coop ownership more advantageous, and discourage economic rent from within our current system. *I think that is required for the “vast number of firms” in a market.

I am not sure, given my understanding of what economic rent is, why people would be against it?

I do not think there should be an oversight agency. *Nobody has ever said that.

I see the need for government, unlike the free-market anarchists, but I think that oversight should be mostly done through guilds or professional organizations rather than by the government.

And I think that all the inspection stuff should be done by private sources rather than by the government.*

I think in the long run, as our markets become more and more free markets, we should consider the legality of economic rent in the question of whether or not a contract for employment is valid.

Again, I am not sure what you are calling economic rent, and so I don’t understand why you are against it.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #368
One of the goals of distributism, guilds, is a response to the understanding that men suffer from original sin.

As guilds operate to restrict competition and price cutting, with people subject to Original Sin, their monopoly power is analogous to that of government favouritism. (See The Church and the Market, Dr Thomas E Woods, Lexington Books , p 189).

In what way does free market anarchy protect against those me who feel the effects of orignal sin most strongly?

Nothing thwarts Original Sin except faith and reason through Sanctifying Grace. The use of “anarchy” is an example of the effect of O.S. in the user.

And many popes have written of the dangers of unfettered capitalism, the “greed of unchecked competition,” as Pope Leo XIII put it in Rerum Novarum (p. 3).

Catholic social teaching develops and free enterprise has never been unfettered.

Pope Leo XIII referred to the minds and actions of those people described as “the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors” (Rerum Novarum, # 6).

A famous text of Leo XIII defended Capitalism, and stated that both capital and labor have the right to exist in a Catholic society. In Rerum Novarum he preached harmony between capital and labor rather than a suppression of the regime of capital.

Pope Leo XIII referred to the minds and actions of those people described as “the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors” (Rerum Novarum, # 6).
After defending the right of private property against the attacks of the Socialists, Leo XIII emphatically affirmed:
“The great mistake made in regard to the matter under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.
_“Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion – whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian – in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other” (n. 19).
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j008htDistributism_Encyclicals_Odou.htm

 

[Abu]

St Francis #368
And one cannot ignore Pope Benedict’s recent thoughts about an international political entity which would regulate the affairs of transnational corporations and international interchanges.
And the calls of two popes for international oversight?

**The Truth about Caritas in Veritate by Fr. John De Celles **catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102

‘ “Many have suggested that the encyclical is an “attack on capitalism,” twisting phrases such as the Holy Father’s reference to a “constructing new order of economic productivity” [CV 41] to produce headlines like the New York Times’: “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order.” A careful reading of the encyclical shows that he is not proposing to tear down the present world economic order, especially capitalism. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth.1 It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.” Other than that, the Pope does not propose any kind of new order in a technical sense, as he himself explains: “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. He merely presents moral principles and practical advice, attempting to shed the light of the truth of Jesus Christ in guiding the existing order of nations and states.’

tinyurl.com/3mqwtdz
Pope Benedict calls for ‘central world bank’ … only he didn’t. Here’s why.
by Thomas Peters,
October 24, 2011 (Catholicvote.org) –
“You may have seen this story which was headlined earlier today on the Drudge Report:

“The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.

“Notice that Fr. Reese does NOT correct the news anchor that this document comes from a Vatican congregation — not the pope! Fr. Reese seems perfectly happy to help the mainstream media fundamentally misunderstand the authority of teaching this document enjoys. He claims that the pope has “more in common with the people at occupy wallstreet” than the tea party, even though he has to immediately walk back that claim when it is pointed out to him how violent (and anti-Catholic!) the Occupy Rome demonstrations were (as I blogged about last week). I think it’s no surprise that Fr. Reese spends so much time talking about the 60′s — that’s still his cultural frame of reference.

“I have nothing to immediately add to that, because the very authors of the document make clear how it should be evaluated: namely, as a “contribution” (as opposed to a mandate), as a “possible path” (as opposed to a moral proscription), in line with the Magisterium’s social teaching (as opposed to introducing a new teaching), without getting into the technical issues (because the Church is an expert in humanity, not economics) while fully staying within the Church’s religious and ethical functions.

“Liberal Catholics routinely (and in this case) try to read the Church’s social teaching as dogmatic while choosing to view the Church’s moral and religious teaching as optional. In fact, the Church herself is always careful to make clear that her moral and religious teaching is dogmatic and binding while her social teaching –and particularly her economic teaching– is exhortative and prudential.

“Fr. Reese and his liberal Catholic friends would be better served acting as messengers of the Church’s teaching as opposed to creators of it.”

To: ‘Why aren’t those who are supposed to “want to get rid of government” quoted?’

Gee, all you have to do is to read the comments by David and Cho in this thread.

What we want here is the referenced quotations from recognised scholars or civic leaders who “want to get rid of government”, not comments from Tom, Dick or Harry.

 

[St_Francis]

So, are you proposing that Distributism can not work. That I do agree. Surely, you know we will never rid ourselves of thoughless, immoral, people?. “We have all sinned and fallen short”… This fact is one reason that a free market works so well.

No, I propose that a system with few or no checks on people’s activites is a bad thing. And I came to see that through reading the social justice encyclicals. *

I’m sorry, I put that badly. I was trying to get across that it is a structure which would exist under those circumstances, but is not a structure which would be limited to those circumstances.

What, is wrong with maximizing profits?

I wrote “focusing on maximizing profits.”

Someone in this blog help! I have read, I think CA or RRNV, that maximizing profits is a must for a succesful business. St. Francis, what if Jim the store owner decided not to maximize profits. One day he comes to work and says to the staff, “Look guys I know some of you thought you were gong to get raises and be promoted to the new store, but I have decided not to maximize profits and will not open the new store. And by the way, we will not be hiring more as we are not going to expand.”…

*Strawman argument, David. Business owners do not pay their employees out of their profits, paychecks are an operating cost.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: I used to live in a small town with one grocery store. The next nearest store was over 50 miles away.

The owner of the store hired students to work in the afternoons to help customers take their bags out to their cars. He paid them and forbade tips.

He did this because there was a high proportion of elderly in the area and when he had the bagboys getting tips, they would ignore the people who didn’t tip well. This is an example of not focusing on maximizing profits. (Additionally, his prices were not higher than those of the other grocery store, altho he could easily have “maximized his profit” by charging more.)*

St. Francis, if you want to help the poor; I suggest start with ENCOURAGING business owners to maximize their profits.

One way to maximize profits is to reduce employees wherever possible, to hire them part-time rather than full-time, and to pay them as little as the market will bear.

I would also remind you that work is a virtue.

I have no idea why you would remind me that work is a virtue; distributism not only encourages work but would also encourage and enable to poor not only to work but to set up their own businesses.

If you are going to be logical, you must first ask; what is the objective? And I ask you in a discussion of an economic system, what is the final objective of the system? The final objective is the effecent distribution of goods and services. You must answer this first before addressing the other issues.

*The first priority of every person is to attain holiness; the second is to help those around them to do the same. These priorities must permeate every part of our lives, including what we do in the way of work.

To maximize profit to the exclusion of other considerations, to put the efficiency of our economic environment over human considerations, would be wrong. Is it a good thing that we can efficiently distribute artifical birth control over the entire world? Is it a good thing when multinationals give oit free samples, undermining the local sources of these goods?

In short, what does it matter if we gain the whole world if in the process we lose our souls?*.

What reduces the effectioncy of the distribution of goods and servies? I would agree one of the biggest problems is (in fact) government interference.

Well, you may think that, but government action, including tax breaks, water works adaptations, and the like, has very often smoothed the way for the efficient delivery of substandard goods made by underpaid workers in unsafe conditions around the world, so it’s probably a draw in that respect.

NO! A typical free market assumes methods of amerliorating contract disputes whether via a government judicial system or an agreed upon intermediary. Some form of “government” must be incorporated to give order; BUT not to tell a business what to produce and how much.

*But no one has suggested that this is what distributists want to accomplish.

 

[St_Francis]

NO How do you come that conclusion. Most businesses are NOT in the hands of a few. NO. When there are enterprises that are in the hands of a few, typically, that is because the product produced requires a very large amount of capital and a LONG time to recover cost. Often these businesses loose money intermittently and the cost is astronomical. Would you suggest that the mining industry be small, or the steal manufacturing, or chemical industry?

**What are the biggest companies in the world? The biggest company in the entire world is WalMart.

Of the next 9, 6 are petroleum companies (2 being Chinese) which do everything from extracting the oil, refining it, and selling it retail. Toyota Motor company, cars; a Japanese company which provides insurance, banking, and postal services; and the Chinese electric power company.

All of these Services could be provided using small companies and/or cooperatives.**

Here is a second reason that big is often good: innovation. St. Francis, if you are able to get Milk for 4 cents a gallon would you prefer to buy it at the old $4? Obviosly, not. but in order to get it, it is sold by one manufacturor. One who discovered a methold that took him years to develop and billions of capital to build a processsing plant. What in the world is wrong with him.

**This is a made-up story, with made-up premises. Why should we discuss it?

As has been mentioned before, worker-owned cooperatives would be able to handle the large tasks you think necessarily reserved to large companies.**

No no no … The system has nothing to do with morality, morality has to do with people. People can view others as automotons if they choose or as people with dignity. It has nothing to do with a system. Virtue does not depend on a system, virtue depends on a heart. Read Von Mises’ Human Action.

**Yes, it is true that virtue depends on the individual, and as someone who has been fired for being unwilling to alter books, I know that it is not fully necessary to go along with immoral actions.

But it can be very difficult for a moral person ti refrain when he is dependent on immoral people to support his family, and we can all see how there is a lot of immorality around.

I think your emphasis on this point ignores the fact that the US corporate structure encourages amorality and diffusion or moral responsibility. The designers desig something, the quality control people see there is a fatal flaw, the actuaries think that fixing the flaw will cost more than letting it go, te VP glances over the summary and doesn’t get the full import, and off the item goes… So who is responsible?

So I advocate a system in which morality plays a part alongside efficiency and profit.**

What are those checks???:confused :

**First, smaller businesses, which would maintain communications and not be so big that those in charge have little idea what is happening, and owners are actually involved with day-to-day decision-making. Second, guilds/professional organizations, so there is communication between those of similar professions who can sort out local problems regarding their area of work, and which would include the employees so that they could be involved in subjects relating to them. Third, the above would result in increased subsidiarity which would reduce the need for the government, esp the central government, to continually involve itself in affairs which it should stay out of.

Take one example: the minimum wage. First, some economists believe there should be no minimum wage, so that’s one area for consideration, but let’s say that there has to be one.

The federal government’s setting of this wage is not in line with subsidiarity and does not take into account local conditions. A wage of $7/hour is a helpful supplement to a family income in some parts of the US, but a mere bagatelle in other parts. Moreover, the setting of the minimum wage by those in DC does not take into account other thinhs. Should an inexperienced teenager living at home make the same as an experienced college student? Would the answer depend on the type of work? Should the wage structure be more nuanced? Should it be more responsive to local conditions? Etc. a form of guild in which these questions are discussed on a smaller level would probably come up with a better solution than what we have now.**

Distributism takes from the rights of man

How so? I have not seen anything in Distributism which would lead one to believe this, unless it is the advocacy by SOME of forced sales of stocks and break-up of large businesses into smaller. But even that sort of thing happens all the time now, so I can’t see it as a problem.

You can put lip-stick on a Distributiest, but it is still…

Please explain what it is about distributism which leads you to believe that it is like socialism, because what I see is a system which minimizes government involvement while maintaining some form of oversight. I do not see how a reduction in government oversight could possibly be considered socialistic!
*

 

[St_Francis]

**The Truth about Caritas in Veritate by Fr. John De Celles **catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102…

Oh, I guess people were just confused by Pope Benedict’s writing “*To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, **there is urgent need of a true world political authority, **as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago,” into thinking that he actually was suggesting an international political entity which would regulate the affairs of transnational corporations and international interchanges.

ETA: the quote is from paragraph 67 of Caritas

To: ‘Why aren’t those who are supposed to “want to get rid of government” quoted?’

What we want here is the referenced quotations from recognised scholars or civic leaders who “want to get rid of government”, not comments from Tom, Dick or Harry.

Why should I quote the experts? I am debating the ideas put forth by David and Cho. They can quote experts.

 

[frankpearson]

Again, I am not sure what you are calling economic rent, and so I don’t understand why you are against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
"
According to Tollison (1982), economic rents are “excess returns” above “normal levels” that take place in competitive markets. More specifically, it is “a return in excess of the resource owner’s opportunity cost”.[5]

Henry George, best known for his proposal for a single tax on land, defined rent as “the part of the produce that accrues to the owners of land (or other natural capabilities) by virtue of ownership” and as “the share of wealth given to landowners because they have an exclusive right to the use of those natural capabilities.”[6]
"

Henry George’s FREE book Progress and Poverty - Audio book

I think I found something you should add to your list to Santa:
John Medaille writes about the concept in the book Toward a Truly Free Market, which I recommend.

 

[St_Francis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
"
According to Tollison (1982), economic rents are “excess returns” above “normal levels” that take place in competitive markets. More specifically, it is “a return in excess of the resource owner’s opportunity cost”.[5]

Henry George, best known for his proposal for a single tax on land, defined rent as “the part of the produce that accrues to the owners of land (or other natural capabilities) by virtue of ownership” and as “the share of wealth given to landowners because they have an exclusive right to the use of those natural capabilities.”[6]
"

Henry George’s FREE book Progress and Poverty - Audio book

I think I found something you should add to your list to Santa:
John Medaille writes about the concept in the book Toward a Truly Free Market, which I recommend.

Thanks for the recommendations, Frank. I may be able to use an audiobook as I travel this week

So are suggesting oitlawing things like raising prices in times of emergencies? I have heard very good arguments against restrictions on this activity.

 

[frankpearson]

Thanks for the recommendations, Frank. I may be able to use an audiobook as I travel this week

So are suggesting outlawing things like raising prices in times of emergencies? I have heard very good arguments against restrictions on this activity.

Economic rent is actually much more broad.

Economic rent is all of the profit that a land owner would take from the value of the land in production.