Paid in hours not money to renew society

[CatholicGeek1]

Everyone would be trained according to his capacity to do work that would benefit himself and the larger community. So, no one would be able to simply doodle for a living.

Common sense decides this. A family can easily grow beans and tomatoes, but to produce bread a larger area is needed to grow enough grain. Some people would be bakers who use the grains to make breads and others make flour while families could also use the flour to make their own breads. I don’t see why this would be so difficult.

There is no compensation for anything. Specialty items would be made as demand comes in for them. Again, this is not impossible to do.

I used a bad word there. No one receives any credits. Everyone works and contributes in his own way. The work itself is the compensation for everyone.

Why do people become police officers, fire fighters, crab fishermen? Because of the high pay and benefits? No, it’s because that’s the kind of work they want to do. Many people love serving others, working in all kinds of weather, making things with their hands. It’s natural and the way humans did thing for centuries. There’s no reason why we can’t do that again.

What you are essentially describing at this point is Communism. It is a failed and flawed system and will not work.

 

[Della]

What you are essentially describing at this point is Communism. It is a failed and flawed system and will not work.

No, it’s not. Families owning their own property and their own businesses is not communism, it’s distributism.

As for other objections and advising that I don’t understand politics/economics/Amish, etc. I do. I simply think our current situation is a bad one so we need to reevaluate our values. It’s just a proposal, people. There’s no need to get upset over it.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

No, it’s not. Families owning their own property and their own businesses is not communism, it’s distributism.

As for other objections and advising that I don’t understand politics/economics/Amish, etc. I do. I simply think our current situation is a bad one so we need to reevaluate our values. It’s just a proposal, people. There’s no need to get upset over it.

I’m not upset, but what you are talking about is communism. Ok, so people have private property, fine, but that private property is meaningless if it has no value. The value of property is that it is worth something. It can be exchanged for something. It can be borrowed against for something.

What you are talking about is taking away the profit motive, and just giving people what they need, and expecting others to fulfill those needs. That is communism.

 

[Della]

I’m not upset, but what you are talking about is communism. Ok, so people have private property, fine, but that private property is meaningless if it has no value. The value of property is that it is worth something. It can be exchanged for something. It can be borrowed against for something.

What you are talking about is taking away the profit motive, and just giving people what they need, and expecting others to fulfill those needs. That is communism.

The value of the land is in what it produces. Products of the land are for each family to use what it produces. The only things held in common are those that are needed in common. It’s just that money doesn’t pass hands. I don’t see how that’s communism. Even communist countries deal in currency, this society wouldn’t, that’s all.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

The value of the land is in what it produces. Products of the land are for each family to use what it produces. The only things held in common are those that are needed in common. It’s just that money doesn’t pass hands. I don’t see how that’s communism. Even communist countries deal in currency, this society wouldn’t, that’s all.

What you are describing sounds wonderful in principle. So does Marxism. The problem is that in the real world they fall flat. It is communism with a couple of twists, but the underpinning ideas are exactly the same.

IMO, it is better to attempt to come up with real solution to real problems rather than trying to think of ways to restructure society, that simply are not going to work.

 

[Della]

What you are describing sounds wonderful in principle. So does Marxism. The problem is that in the real world they fall flat. It is communism with a couple of twists, but the underpinning ideas are exactly the same.

Marxism isn’t appealing to me–the individual is subservient to the state and the family non-existent–at least that was the idea but they found pretty quickly that the state couldn’t replace the family. So, no they are not the same at all.

IMO, it is better to attempt to come up with real solution to real problems rather than trying to think of ways to restructure society, that simply are not going to work.

And none of our solutions have worked because they are not natural to the family. The family is the basic unit of humanity. Our society has been making war on the basic family for the last few generations now, and look where we are. We need a complete restructing back to the family. I’m not saying distributism or any form of it is the only answer, but restoring the family certainly is.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Marxism isn’t appealing to me–the individual is subservient to the state and the family non-existent–at least that was the idea but they found pretty quickly that the state couldn’t replace the family. So, no they are not the same at all.

And none of our solutions have worked because they are not natural to the family. The family is the basic unit of humanity. Our society has been making war on the basic family for the last few generations now, and look where we are. We need a complete restructing back to the family. I’m not saying distributism or any form of it is the only answer, but restoring the family certainly is.

Now you are talking about two different issues. Putting the family first is still done by millions around the world and will continue to be. That is a sociological issue, not an economic one.

 

[Della]

Now you are talking about two different issues. Putting the family first is still done by millions around the world and will continue to be. That is a sociological issue, not an economic one.

But they are intrinsically tied together. This is what most people don’t seem to understand, and why we are in the mess we are. I recommend the writings of Chesterton and Belloc on the topic.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

But they are intrinsically tied together. This is what most people don’t seem to understand, and why we are in the mess we are. I recommend the writings of Chesterton and Belloc on the topic.

You are talking about reshaping the way society has worked for thousands of years. It simply isn’t going to work.

It can sound great, it can look great, but if it won’t work in the real world it has no practical application. What the world needs now is practical, workable solutions to very real problems, not utopian visions.

 

[Della]

You are talking about reshaping the way society has worked for thousands of years. It simply isn’t going to work.

Our modern economic system is not an ancient one–it’s quite new. It reduces persons to economic value only. That is not how societies functioned for thousands of years. True, money has always been the exchange for goods and services, excepting bartering. But having a no money economy is the only thing different in what I am proposing.

It can sound great, it can look great, but if it won’t work in the real world it has no practical application. What the world needs now is practical, workable solutions to very real problems, not utopian visions.

All visions sound unworkable when first considered. The republic formed after the American revolution was declared doomed to failure by all the great states of Europe at the time, and yet here we are. Jesus started his Church based on 12 frightened men and a few faithful women–hardly an auspicious beginning. “A world based on love instead of self-interest?” people said. “You’re got to be kidding.”

Any system works if people want it to work. That’s the key. We need radical ideas to shake things up and get people to see things from new perspectives, or rather old ones that were found too hard for sinful man to do. It would take the grace of God to make the system I’ve propsed work. But there’s no harm in aiming for it, even if it’s little steps at a time to get there.

 

[1ke]

As for other objections and advising that I don’t understand politics/economics/Amish, etc. I do.

Well several times you have held up the Amish as an example of your system. But they do not live the way you have described. Hence my assertion that you may have some misunderstandings about them.

In this exercise of whether your idea is “completely insane” or “could really work”-- the question you posed in your OP-- you must be willing to answer questions about your idea and your proposed system.

So far, all we have is:

Della’s idea -----> magic beans ----> utopia

Between “Della’s Idea” and “Utopia” there are “the things that will make it work or not”.

So, for example, one poster asked how things get allocated and who allocates them, what happens if someone doesn’t want to be a garbage collector but rather an artist, and what happens when a good or service is scarce-- such as the luxury watch you have mentioned artisans making for the joy of watchmaking.

Your answer thus far has amounted to “common sense”. Well, really, that is not an answer at all. If your real answer is “I have no idea” just say so. If your real answer is “the government controls the means of production and allocates resources” say so.

We own a working dairy farm. In your scenario explain to me how we obtain the goods and services we need as (name removed by moderator)uts (fuel, feed, equipment) and what happens to our milk after we milk the cows?

 

[Della]

Well several times you have held up the Amish as an example of your system. But they do not live the way you have described. Hence my assertion that you may have some misunderstandings about them.

Ah, no I didn’t. I didn’t and don’t hold up the Amish as an example of distributism.

In this exercise of whether your idea is “completely insane” or “could really work”-- the question you posed in your OP-- you must be willing to answer questions about your idea and your proposed system.

So far, all we have is:

Della’s idea -----> magic beans ----> utopia

Between “Della’s Idea” and “Utopia” there are “the things that will make it work or not”.

I have explained but if this is how you wish to interpret my words, I can’t help that.

So, for example, one poster asked how things get allocated and who allocates them, what happens if someone doesn’t want to be a garbage collector but rather an artist, and what happens when a good or service is scarce-- such as the luxury watch you have mentioned artisans making for the joy of watchmaking.

You are thinking in terms of how society currently functions not in terms of what a distributist society would be like. In order to see what I mean you should read Chesterton and Belloc on the topic. There isn’t room enough on a forum to go into minute detail.

Your answer thus far has amounted to “common sense”. Well, really, that is not an answer at all. If your real answer is “I have no idea” just say so. If your real answer is “the government controls the means of production and allocates resources” say so.

No, I do mean what I say: common sense. If people want clean homes and decent working conditions they will make it happen. If socity wants everyone to have food and a decent home they will make it happen. No government forcing people to do anything.

We own a working dairy farm. In your scenario explain to me how we obtain the goods and services we need as (name removed by moderator)uts (fuel, feed, equipment) and what happens to our milk after we milk the cows?

Everything anyone needs to do his vocation would be supplied by everyone doing their vocation. It’s really very simple, but we are so used to everything being overly complex and full of red tape we are simply unable to understand how it would work unless and until we are willing to give up our current notions of worth and value. Again, read Chesterton and Belloc.

 

[maryjk]

You are thinking in terms of how society currently functions not in terms of what a distributist society would be like. In order to see what I mean you should read Chesterton and Belloc on the topic. There isn’t room enough on a forum to go into minute detail.

Something my husband and I agreed with, while we were home educating our son.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41iTFtG7o2L.SL500_AA300.jpg

 

[Della]

Something my husband and I agreed with, while we were home educating our son.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41iTFtG7o2L.SL500_AA300.jpg

Yes, it’s all about the family for families make or break societies. Societies that don’t value the family dissolve into tyranny.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Brothers and Sisters,

This does not have to be an all or nothing society.

We can introduce elements of the timebank idea in to our society, so say for example someone who works in an office all week, at weekends they can teach piano for a timebank.

In fact, this is what’s happening now.

Here is the proof:

community.timebanks.org/

And as for the Amish, I feel we have a lot to learn from them where they put the welfare of others above themselves and try to lead Godly simple lives. Please note I don’t say the Amish are perfect or saints, just that we can learn lessons from them as they can from us.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

But with the ‘hours’ system everybody would be about equal in ‘pay.’

That’s called Communism.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

But we should look after one another’s needs. The first church was run this way:

Acts 4:32

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

See also

Acts 2:43-47, 4:32-37, 5-1-11, 6:1-7

 

[1ke]

But we should look after one another’s needs. The first church was run this way:

Acts 4:32

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

See also

Acts 2:43-47, 4:32-37, 5-1-11, 6:1-7

I don’t think anyone here is arguing against helping others, distributism, or the time bank system.

But that is not what Della proposed in her OP. We are discussing the merits of her proposal, not on the merits of other proposals.

 

[Della]

That’s called Communism.

The funny thing is, all isms that opposed Christianity have robbed elements from it and then ran off the deep end with it. It’s like exalting one virtue and abandoning all others, turning the virtue into a vice or making it useless.

Distributism is centered in the family and personal property. How that property is used for the benefit of the family and the wider community is where it seriously departs from all other isms that have borrowed from it.

 

[Fairwinds]

I think that the current minimum wage is a joke, there should be a minimum wage that is high enough to support living. That being said, yes it is unfair that some people are capable of higher-skilled jobs that pay more many and some people are not. However, life is not fair. You make the best of what God has given you.

what’s your reasoning on pegging the min. wage to a living wage? the unions would love it, entry level low skilled first timers would not.