Is Distributism utopian?

[St_Francis]

The confusion of economics with morality is endless.

And your point is…? Are we never to discuss morality within discussions of economics?

Precisely Pope Benedict XVI’s affirmation: “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 et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

And how do we call individuals to account?

As far as the laws of economics exist, the Popes have warned that:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 3].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

Yes, this is the way the Church operates: She teaches the boundaries of morality and we apply that information. However, we are the ones who actually apply that information…

…
People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, against monopolies and other immoral practices. Dr Alejandro Chafuen: Economics “is the study of the formal applications that can be deduced from the fact that human beings act purposefully. It does not consider whether these actions are good or bad (an ethical question). Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” (Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 33).

“[W]e have laws … against monopolies…” Wouldn’t this be an unfair violation of laissez-faire? What is wrong with a businessman being so good at what he does that he blows his competition out of the market?

Are you suuuure you are an advocate of laissez-faire? it seems to me that you are veering dangerously towards the evil dstributism by your accptance of such an intrusive move against free market activity!

 

[David_Castlen]

The confusion of economics with morality is endless.

Fr James Sadowsky, S.J., professor emeritus of philosophy at Fordham University, expressed it well when he said that ethics is prescriptive while economics is descriptive. “Economics,” he says, “indicates the probable effects of certain policies, while ethics determines what one should do.” These are two very different things. [Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr., *The Church and the Market

, Lexington Books, 2005, p 31].

Precisely Pope Benedict XVI’s affirmation: “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 et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

As far as the laws of economics exist, the Popes have warned that:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

There is a solid basis of economic Catholic thought from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. 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).

People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, against monopolies and other immoral practices. Dr Alejandro Chafuen: Economics “is the study of the formal applications that can be deduced from the fact that human beings act purposefully. It does not consider whether these actions are good or bad (an ethical question). Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” (Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 33).

**you know, Abu, I am currently making an effort ot memorize the Sermon On the Mount. After that (a bit of time) I think I will try your above comments. They are all from the Acton Institute series, no?

**

 

[frankpearson]

The confusion of economics with morality is endless.

Fr James Sadowsky, S.J., professor emeritus of philosophy at Fordham University, expressed it well when he said that ethics is prescriptive while economics is descriptive. “Economics,” he says, “indicates the probable effects of certain policies, while ethics determines what one should do.” These are two very different things. [Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr., *The Church and the Market

, Lexington Books, 2005, p 31].

Precisely Pope Benedict XVI’s affirmation: “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 et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

As far as the laws of economics exist, the Popes have warned that:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

There is a solid basis of economic Catholic thought from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. 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).

People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, against monopolies and other immoral practices. Dr Alejandro Chafuen: Economics “is the study of the formal applications that can be deduced from the fact that human beings act purposefully. It does not consider whether these actions are good or bad (an ethical question). Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” (Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 33).

We are actually just talking past one another. Nobody is denying the efficacy and benefit of having a free market. We all agree with that.

I found myself, in this discussion, responding to the basic idea of whether or not government involvement in the functioning of the market is just. And moreover, whether or not the regulation of the relationship between labor and capital by political authority is just.

I feel that you have been evading my clear intent because you hold to beliefs that you know the Church has condemned. So I am looking for the answer to a very simple question, a direct and succinct answer, not long drawn out quotations about peripheral issues, like heretics often give. I do not need any quotes from the magnificent Dr. Woods or even to “et al”. Let’s just get a clear answer to this question:

**Should the government regulate the relationship between labor and capital and the exchange of goods in the market? And if so, how exactly should the government regulate them? **

 

[David_Castlen]

We are actually just talking past one another. Nobody is denying the efficacy and benefit of having a free market. We all agree with that.

I found myself, in this discussion, responding to the basic idea of whether or not government involvement in the functioning of the market is just. And moreover, whether or not the regulation of the relationship between labor and capital by political authority is just.

I feel that you have been evading my clear intent because you hold to beliefs that you know the Church has condemned. So I am looking for the answer to a very simple question, a direct and succinct answer, not long drawn out quotations about peripheral issues, like heretics often give.

Yeh, like that heretic Thomas Aquinas - you know he was a heretic - nobody could out-do his verbage/B]

I do not need any quotes from the magnificent Dr. Woods or even to “et al”.
** It could be worse like that magnificent Frank Person or even “et al”**

Let’s just get a clear answer to this question:

Should the government regulate the relationship between labor and capital
Regulate “no” ; respond to violations of people’s natural rights "yes"
and the exchange of goods in the market?
Regulate “no” ; respond to violations of contracts and people’s natural rights “yes”
And if so, how exactly should the government regulate them?
Never, except in organ sells:thumbsup:

 

[St_Francis]

David Wrote (but it would not come up in the quote feature because again he wrote all his responses within the previous quoted material…)

Originally Posted by frankpearson

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
We are actually just talking past one another. Nobody is denying the efficacy and benefit of having a free market. We all agree with that.

I found myself, in this discussion, responding to the basic idea of whether or not government involvement in the functioning of the market is just. And moreover, whether or not the regulation of the relationship between labor and capital by political authority is just.

I feel that you have been evading my clear intent because you hold to beliefs that you know the Church has condemned. So I am looking for the answer to a very simple question, a direct and succinct answer, not long drawn out quotations about peripheral issues, like heretics often give.

Yeh, like that heretic Thomas Aquinas - you know he was a heretic - nobody could out-do his verbage

What Frank said was very clear: he wrote "like heretics often give."He was not referring to the material in the quotes, but to the fact that you give long drawn-out quotations which do not refer to the actual subject at hand.

 

[frankpearson]

Should the government regulate the relationship between labor and capital
Regulate “no” ; respond to violations of people’s natural rights “yes”
and the exchange of goods in the market?
Regulate “no” ; respond to violations of contracts and people’s natural rights “yes”
And if so, how exactly should the government regulate them?
Never, except in organ sells

Thanks for responding. I am eager to hear from Abu, too.

So one quick followup then. Should government ever redistribute wealth?

 

[David_Castlen]

Thanks for responding. I am eager to hear from Abu, too.

So one quick followup then. Should government ever redistribute wealth?

: Yes absolutely, if the purpose of government is to make life a living hell for the poor****

 

[Abu]

frankpearson #501
Should the government regulate the relationship between labor and capital and the exchange of goods in the market? And if so, how exactly should the government regulate them?

We have seen that governments must govern by making sensible laws which prohibit behaviour which attacks the common good – the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, lie, and against monopolies and harmful products – to name a few.

On ownership of property:
“The idea that proper use of property must be compelled by law contradicts Pius XI’s decree in *Quadragesimo Anno *(47): ‘In order to place definite limits on the controversies that have arisen over ownership and its inherent duties there must be first laid down as foundation a principle established by Leo XIII: The right of property is distinct from its use.[30] That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others’ rights through the exceeding of the limits of one’s own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which “cannot be enforced by legal action.”[31] Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use.’ ” (Alejandro Chafuen, Christians For Freedom, Ignatius, 1986, p 156; italics by Chafuen).
30. Encyclical, On the Condition of Workers, 35.
31. Encyclical, On the Condition of Workers, 36.

As we have seen in post #496, the Popes have clearly explained that:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs…” (Leo XII)
“The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations” Bl John Paul II)
She “recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.….” (Benedict XVI)

#504: Should government ever redistribute wealth?

On Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate, Fr. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute (U.S.A.), comments: “Benedict does see a role for the state here [in wealth redistribution], but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.”

Fr De Celles: “….the Pope writes specifically of the need for the ‘redistribution of wealth,’ which many say is anathema to capitalism. Unfortunately, his use of the term is often ambiguous, but in no way suggests a massive effort by government to take from the rich, by taxes or other means, to give to the poor. In fact, he seems to argue against that kind of radical redistribution when he later proposes the need for an ‘effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state’ [CV 57]. The only time he is clear on what he means by ‘wealth redistribution’ is when he uses it to mean increasing the share of wealth of the poor by normal market economic activity such as, better jobs, increased profits, etc. [CV 42]. No capitalist I know would object to that, or even to the normal redistribution of wealth that comes through reasonable taxation…… This seems consistent with what he said just six months prior to releasing CV: ‘the illusion that a policy of mere redistribution of existing wealth can definitively resolve the problem must be set aside. …Wealth creation therefore becomes an inescapable duty… if the fight against material poverty is to be effective in the long term.’ Message of the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2009.”

Private property and its moral and productive use are important components of any just social order.
It is clear that coercive state systems provide neither material goods nor political liberties. Social justice is directed toward seeking greater equity and compassion within free market systems.

The fixation on “laissez faire” shows an inability to distinguish economic schools; Dr Chafuen acknowledges the “considerable distance between the laissez faire of the French economists and Austrian theory” and points out that “it was the Physiocrats who coined the phrase laissez faire.”

 

[St_Francis]

The fixation on “laissez faire” shows an inability to distinguish economic schools; Dr Chafuen acknowledges the “considerable distance between the laissez faire of the French economists and Austrian theory” and points out that “it was the Physiocrats who coined the phrase laissez faire.”

So from which economic school do you and David come?

 

[frankpearson]

We have seen that governments must govern by making sensible laws which prohibit behaviour which attacks the common good – the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, lie, and against monopolies and harmful products – to name a few.

…

The fixation on “laissez faire” shows an inability to distinguish economic schools; Dr Chafuen acknowledges the “considerable distance between the laissez faire of the French economists and Austrian theory” and points out that “it was the Physiocrats who coined the phrase laissez faire.”

So in other words, no. You cannot give a concise and straight answer. You realize that it takes a lot of verbal gymnastics to contradict a clear statement such as:

Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country’s international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development

or

Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics

or

In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution.

You certainly paid your lip service in your opening paragraph, but then proceeded to tell us why we really could, for the most part, ignore the consistent and fundamental tone of the Church’s guidance on the role of the state in the market and in the relationships between labor and capital.

[all quotes are from Caritas in Veritate]

Do words such as “the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution.” lead you to believe that the Church doesn’t believe the government should be involved in redistrubution of wealth? You are opposing the spirit of the guidance of the Church while dancing around the intent, attempting to turn the teaching of the popes on its head. Can you not see how deplorable this is? Can you not see how dishonest this is?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, I guess distributionism IS utopian … because I requested some real-world examples and got: NO ANSWER.

 

[Abu]

frankpearson #53
Distributism is nothing like socialism, and has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.
#370
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.

The fixation now on “redistribution” exposes the misrepresentation of the Holy Father’s analysis.

frankpearson #508
Do words such as “the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution.” lead you to believe that the Church doesn’t believe the government should be involved in redistrubution of wealth? You are opposing the spirit of the guidance of the Church while dancing around the intent, attempting to turn the teaching of the popes on its head. Can you not see how deplorable this is? Can you not see how dishonest this is?

We really don’t need fixations that are irrational.

A few incisive comments reveal frankpearson’s confusion.
**Richard Garnett: **
“It was predictable, but is nevertheless regrettable, that many pundits and partisans would respond to *Caritas in Veritate *not so much by engaging Pope Benedict’s profoundly Christian humanism but instead by hunting through the text for quotations they could deploy in support of their own pet policies. (The Pope, for his part, urged “all people of good will” to “liberate [themselves] from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways.”) Rather than reflecting carefully on the Pope’s central proposal, namely, that “[f]idelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom and of the possibility of integral human development,” commentators who might ordinarily roll their eyes at policy suggestions from the bishop of Rome are happy to uproot from the encyclical’s inspiring, challenging vision a few talking points about environmental stewardship, trade unionism, or the redistribution of wealth.
Richard Garnett is professor of law at Notre Dame University.

Supreme Knight criticizes use of Pope’s encyclical for political agendas
cna ^ | July 7, 2009“
When you look in Africa where you see dictators that are presidents of countries that retire from office with billions of dollars in their Swiss bank accounts while their people are living on one dollar a day, is that just redistribution?”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2287608/posts

(CeV #42):
“The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed. For a long time it was thought that poor peoples should remain at a fixed stage of development, and should be content to receive assistance from the philanthropy of developed peoples. Paul VI strongly opposed this mentality in Populorum Progressio.”

Here we see the core of the Pope’s “redistributist” large-scale meaning: it is through training, entrepreneurship, work and supplying, at competitive prices through trade, what others need in other countries. Additionally we see the importance of sound management – often neglected today.

Fr Sirico sums up the theme and direction of Caritas in Veritate accurately:
“Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.

“The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. ‘The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,’ the pope firmly states, and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’

“This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.

“Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.”

 

[frankpearson]

The fixation now on “redistribution” exposes the misrepresentation of the Holy Father’s analysis.
We really don’t need fixations that are irrational.

I highlighted redistribution of wealth simply because your rhetoric goes in direct contradiction to the guidance of the Church. Distributism is not about redistribution of wealth, but it does attempt to address ownership distribution. This is something that is the obvious aim of any focus upon redistribution of wealth by the Church.

Your fixation on my usage of the term “Laissez Faire”, which I am using to represent the pursuit of that ideal, the deification of the market, the idea that involvement of political authority in the exchanges between men are never in the best interest of the common good, is exactly what I have come to expect from your serpentine form of argumentation. I thought that I was clear. I understand that your form of argumentation is in attempting to dance around definitions instead of facing head on the fact that you are working, with your rhetoric, in exactly the opposite direction that the Church is working.

 

[Abu]

A further examination of Caritas in Veritate reveals the cohesion of this Encyclical.
tinyurl.com/3zdzbwm
**Papal Freedom Regression?
by Donald Devine
Issue 137 - August 5, 2009 **
“Globalization–that is the world market–is precisely how we want redistribution to take place, freely, which it will in a truly free market. If redistribution takes place through the market governed by just property laws, is this not just what we desire? So far, I see no regression.

“Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute notes, Benedict ‘does not focus on specific systems of economics – he is not attempting to shore up anyone’s political agenda. He is rather concerned with morality and the theological foundation of culture.’

“This hoped-for reappraisal of *Populorum Progressio’s *empirical assumptions is precisely what Pope Benedict has accomplished, specifically requiring that ‘an evaluation is needed of the different terms in which the problem of development is presented today, as compared with forty years ago.’

“Benedict reaffirms the ‘importance of distributive justice and social justice’ and the social responsibility of business. That vision is ‘still timely,’ says Benedict; but the ‘world that Pope Paul VI had before him’ has changed….Supporters of economic and social freedom should be reassured that this papal argument directly follows market theorist and Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek’s prescription that just rules must come first and distributional results must proceed from them rather than being allocated by political authorities afterwards.

“For Benedict, redistribution comes from politics, yes, but through prior rules adopted by people ‘who freely choose’ them in the spirit of the unconditional gift. What spirit could be freer or more in accord with Hayek’s logic, including when he used religious orders and local communities as examples of communal actions freely undertaken and not at all inconsistent with the market? Benedict explains that a loving gift is not mere sentimentality’ that is ‘detached from ethical living’ by political or economic ideologies where ‘social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power.’

“Benedict’s criticism of political redistribution afterwards as a replacement for gift and free exchange is actually a great advancement of John Paul, to say nothing of the Hayekian paradigm. Benedict goes well beyond nation and state or even tradition to make human freedom unalienable.

“Benedict identifies liberty’s components as the individual and the freely established groupings he or she creates, which freedom remains inalienable even within the state, very much including the democratic welfare state.
“Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state.”

This accurately reveals subsidiarity and unalienable freedom as essential, against a “welfare state”.

 

[frankpearson]

Then what do you say about what is happening in India, where individuals actually do sell their organs? (the ones you can live without some of…)

Yea, here is that organ salesman caricature we had earlier, except real. Proponents are working using the same sort of argumentation as the Laissez Faire dreamers here. Why can’t we just let the market work, for peace, prosperity, and happiness? That overbearing state is always trying to stop the poor from selling their organs on the global market.

Even after the police crackdown, some brokers have continued to arrange organ sales with impunity, running high-profile rackets and even maintaining websites advertising their services.

Deeraj Bojwani runs an all-inclusive kidney brokering service out of Mumbai that boasts a smoothly designed service that can circumvent any ethics committee.

Part of why it’s so easy for Bojwani and others to get around the law is because some states stipulate that only relatives or individuals with “love and affection” for the recipient can donate an organ. So while it’s a stretch to imagine that’s the case between an American from Oklahoma receiving a kidney from a slum dweller in Mumbai, it could also be difficult to prove otherwise.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Maybe not “utopian” … maybe “hypothetical” …

Maybe a foolish waste of time.

Consider the lightbulb. And the current fiasco with virtually banning the incandescent lightbulb and then at the last second doing a backhanded “unbanning” after having shut down all of the incandescent lightbulb factories in the United States.

This is what happens with corporate fascism.

Your light bulb manufacturers went along with the new standard because they saw a government created market. Then the government takes their market away. I hope they can compete without the dictate. When the government starts dictating peoples choices, it creates problems, one of which can be “chaos” for manufacturers trying to stay with the latest rule, instead of reading the market place. Just because you like conservation doesn’t make it not corporate fascism because you think it is working in your favor. Those that recognize it as a form of fascism are the ones who lose choices or have their costs increased because of the winner in the government influence circles.

Wind turbine manufacturers do not think the 2.25 cent/kwh tax credits are fascism. The taxpayers that pay for more expensive forms of energy that raises their taxes and their electric bills see the fascism. If the government can bless you and gore someone else’s ox, they thus have the power to bless someone else and gore your ox. Controlling energy choices is a way to remove economic freedom in an essential part of our economy.

When the government decides to control student loans, what institutions can accept students with government loans, employee compensation, choice of auto manufacturers, fishing rights in American waters, oil exploration, oil pipelines, choice of fuel for electricity production, the types of securities that banks can use for primary capital (sovereign and mortgage securities were defined in the zero risk group by the Basel rules), who can get sub prime mortgage loans, the size of loans the government will guarantee, what medical procedures are allowed based on “cost effectiveness” instead of safety, the medical insurance industry, who will get their insurance paid for by the government and you will pay taxes on their insurance, who has to have insurance, which manufacturers of modern medical technologies have to pay additional taxes increasing medical costs, what level of medicaid support the states have to provide to get government funds, who is considered low income (now includes over half of Americans just because they changed the definition for political purposes), sources of manufacturing (import levies and allocations), export subsidies, which solar projects get government grants and loans, how much offshore oil can be leased, cancelling leases, NLRB deciding where industry can build plants, favoritism to union industries over non-union industries and states, eliminating market checks on union wages, subsidies to certain types of vehicles, tax credits to efficient garage doors to non-heated garages, dictating mileage standards for cars while ignoring safety impacts, penalizing states for exporting clean air to states without clean air, removing mercury beyond any level that will produce incremental health benefits for the purpose of making coal electricity more expensive, eliminating the use of even hand’s free wireless devices in cars although studies indicate that’s a low risk part of the wireless phenomena in driving, what our kids can eat in local public schools, moving tax breaks around to your favorite political constituency to get votes for the next election, punishing success and rewarding dependence, adding regulations to derivatives that had nothing to do with the spread of the housing price decline’s negative impact to securities, thus unnecessarily increasing costs, ignoring one set of villains (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) because they are friends, taking nearly two years to implement the new financial regulations so business operates under significant uncertainty when expansion would help the economy, increasing capital requirements to banks while complaining they won’t loan, publishing government studies on wealth distribution that distort the truth, etc.

I know there are more that I can’t think up off the top of head.

It is a bit facetious to criticize the “free market” when the government is turning it into a tortured instrument of the political class.

Reminds me: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[David_Castlen]

The fixation now on “redistribution” exposes the misrepresentation of the Holy Father’s analysis.
We really don’t need fixations that are irrational.

A few incisive comments reveal frankpearson’s confusion.
**Richard Garnett: **
“It was predictable, but is nevertheless regrettable, that many pundits and partisans would respond to *Caritas in Veritate *not so much by engaging Pope Benedict’s profoundly Christian humanism but instead by hunting through the text for quotations they could deploy in support of their own pet policies. (The Pope, for his part, urged “all people of good will” to “liberate [themselves] from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways.”) Rather than reflecting carefully on the Pope’s central proposal, namely, that “[f]idelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom and of the possibility of integral human development,” commentators who might ordinarily roll their eyes at policy suggestions from the bishop of Rome are happy to uproot from the encyclical’s inspiring, challenging vision a few talking points about environmental stewardship, trade unionism, or the redistribution of wealth.
Richard Garnett is professor of law at Notre Dame University.

Supreme Knight criticizes use of Pope’s encyclical for political agendas
cna ^ | July 7, 2009“
When you look in Africa where you see dictators that are presidents of countries that retire from office with billions of dollars in their Swiss bank accounts while their people are living on one dollar a day, is that just redistribution?”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2287608/posts

(CeV #42):
“The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed. For a long time it was thought that poor peoples should remain at a fixed stage of development, and should be content to receive assistance from the philanthropy of developed peoples. Paul VI strongly opposed this mentality in Populorum Progressio.”

Here we see the core of the Pope’s “redistributist” large-scale meaning: it is through training, entrepreneurship, work and supplying, at competitive prices through trade, what others need in other countries. Additionally we see the importance of sound management – often neglected today.

Fr Sirico sums up the theme and direction of Caritas in Veritate accurately:
“Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.

“The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. ‘The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,’ the pope firmly states, and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’

“This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.

“Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.”

 

[frankpearson]

Well, I guess distributionism IS utopian … because I requested some real-world examples and got: NO ANSWER.

I’m sorry. I was engrossed in a different conversation and missed your last post. Here is a link to practical distrubtism in 100 seconds:
Distributism is the economic philosophy of ownership.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, I guess distributionism IS utopian … because I requested some real-world examples and got: NO ANSWER.

Oh, I thought you were asking for examples about people who “declined to maximize their profit.”

Anyway, I gave at least a couple earlier in the thread.

 

[David_Castlen]

I

Distributism is not about redistribution of wealth, but it does attempt to address ownership distribution.

Anyone out there writing a text book on Logic? Here is a perfect example of a Contradictory Premise:
Distributism does attempt to address ownership distribution but Distributism is not about reditriubtion of wealth.