Paid in hours not money to renew society

[Gia_B]

I decided to step back for a few days in hopes that this whole thing would get better. It hasn’t.

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.

You cannot just say “Go read hundreds of pages and then you’ll understand what I mean.” It is not my job to figure out what you mean by distributism. It’s not 1ke’s job. It’s not CatholicGeek1’s job. It’s your job. You’re the one making the claim, so you are the one who has to back it up. No one is going to believe that what you’re thinking about is distributism and not communism unless you say what you mean those terms and actually explain how how this whole thing will work.

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.

How will they make it happen? How will they distribute both goods and labor? Let me guess: common sense. What happens when people have differing definitions of common sense and fairness? What happens when people’s preferences do not align with what is available or what is needed?

Again, read Chesterton and Belloc.

No! You read it. You explain it.

 

[Della]

I have explained distributism. It’s families owning their own property and businesses. Really, that’s it. No corporations or big government needed. To flesh it out, I recommend reading Chestertion and Belloc because it would take a book’s length to go into all the details of it, which we cannot do here.

Would this mean we wouldn’t have mass produced goods with people working in factories to make them? Yes. Would that be a bad thing? Not really. Human beings don’t need most of the stuff we produce.

The only advantage that has come about with mass production, that makes sense to me, has been in medicine and convenience. But we have paid a heavy price for them in isolation and perhaps in the health of our children.

I have said that although distributism works in small communities, it would be a bit unwieldy for a country to adopt as it’s main system. But, there really isn’t any reason why it cannot work on the local level–especially in isolated areas.

Money is a necessity, as things stand now in our culture and our fallen state as humans. I very much doubt money will be needed in the new heaven and the new earth. If people would only use their common sense–the sense that tells them that what benefits all benefits them, as well, it could be done. But I don’t see it happening. There’s nothing wrong with desiring such a system or working to make it work where possible.

 

[Fairwinds]

I have explained distributism. It’s families owning their own property and businesses. Really, that’s it. No corporations or big government needed. …

you should incorporate for tax and liability reasons.

where did the “corporations are evil” meme get started?

 

[Della]

you should incorporate for tax and liability reasons.

where did the “corporations are evil” meme get started?

In a distributism society there is no need for taxes or liability. Corporations can be soulless and can turn people into drones–a good many have done just that. Families that work together in their own businesses is a better model for family unity and happiness.

 

[Fairwinds]

In a distributism society there is no need for taxes or liability. Corporations can be soulless and can turn people into drones–a good many have done just that. Families that work together in their own businesses is a better model for family unity and happiness.

so if I sue you for failing to meet your contract obligations, I can take the entire farm if necessary. cool.

 

[Della]

so if I sue you for failing to meet your contract obligations, I can take the entire farm if necessary. cool.

There are no contracts in a distributist society, either.

 

[Gia_B]

I have explained distributism. It’s families owning their own property and businesses. Really, that’s it. No corporations or big government needed. To flesh it out, I recommend reading Chestertion and Belloc because it would take a book’s length to go into all the details of it, which we cannot do here.

You have not explained a single thing in this entire discussion. I don’t see how falimiles owning property makes the system distributism. Yes, I could read Chesterton and Belloc, but, as I have pointed out, it’s your job to back up your claims.

If you can’t explain the basic functionality of your system, then the problem lies with you and your system.
Let’s walk something through step by step.
In the real world:

1. Tom grows potatoes.
2. After deciding for himself how many he’ll keep based on his own estimations of his family’s need, Tom packs up the rest of the crop and goes to the market.
3. Tom prices his potatoes base on criteria such as how much it cost him to grow the potatoes, how much money he thinks he’ll need for the rest of the year, how many other potato farmers there are in the market, the quality of his potatoes, how much people like potatoes and how willing people are to buy a substitute, such as beans, instead of potatoes.
4. Tom presents his price to the market and adjusts it as necessary. If there are a lot of people buying his potatoes, he may raise the price. If no one is buying, he may lower the price.
5. Tom takes his money to go buy other goods. Using criteria similar to those in step 3, he will decide if he believes those goods to be fairly priced by their vendors. If he agrees with the price and wants the good, he will buy it.
6. Tom returns home with the goods he bought, the extra money and a few spare potatoes.

In “Della’s Distributism”:

1. Tom grows potatoes
2. Tom gives an unspecified amount of potatoes to a general fund.
3. Tom somehow receives bread, cloth, motorcycles and everything else he needs.

Do you see the difference?

I have said that although distributism works in small communities, it would be a bit unwieldy for a country to adopt as it’s main system. But, there really isn’t any reason why it cannot work on the local level–especially in isolated areas.

And if you need something from outside the immediate area? For example, not every community will not have access to mineral deposits. If they need iron to make tools, how will they get it?

If people would only use their common sense–the sense that tells them that what benefits all benefits them, as well, it could be done.

Look, this is the third time I’m going to ask this: What are you going to do when people come up with different definitions of “common sense” and “the greater good” and all that?
Let’s have an example. There is a community with five families called A, B, C, D and E. A portion of all food produced (how this amount is decided, I have no idea) is placed in a community store house. The head of each family determines that he needs exactly five units of this food stuff to get his family though the winter. When the five men arrive, they find that there are only twenty units of the food stuff.
A says: Let us evenly divide the food among ourselves. It’s common sense.
B says: I have a much larger family than any of you, therefore I should have a larger share. It’s common sense.
C says: My work is much more strenuous and requires a larger caloric intake, therefore I should have a larger share. It’s common sense.
D says: I am the only one here who is not a farmer with his own stash which with to supplement the food I get, therefore I should have a larger share. It’s common sense.
E says: I have contributed more food than anyone else, therefore I should have a larger share. It’s common sense.
Each man invokes common sense, wants something different and has a point that is at least somewhat valid. What are you going to do about it?

But I don’t see it happening. There’s nothing wrong with desiring such a system or working to make it work where possible.

See, the problem is that by “working to make it work” you keep relying on wishful thinking with no thought to how this would be practically applied.

 

[Fairwinds]

There are no contracts in a distributist society, either.

every exchange is a contract, even if its performance for performance. in a wholly agrarian society, contracts with future performance have to exist, since your crop might not come in until 6 months after you buy my crop.

so, if you can’t perform your contract, I can sue you and wind up with your farm because you didn’t limit your personal liability. cool.

 

[otjm]

Gia B;10775245:

It would be the whole of society that would see the time given in the home or workplace as valuable to the greater good. I’m not talking about economics–that entails money and exchanging goods, if understand it correctly.

It’s a social proposal–a way of living in which everyone’s talents and efforts are valued for what they contribute to society. Does that help or make sense? It’s something like, and would be compatable with, distributism as proposed by G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc.

I am no expert in economic theory or economic history, but I don’t recall any society that has given value, in the sense of something that could be spent (dollars, tradable items in a barter system, etc.) for the work of a homemaker. There are benefits - a clean home, laundry done, children raised - which are intangible benefits to society. and we could sidetrack this thread as to the detriment to society with two adult wage earners in a family (unsupervised children, children “raised” by day care workers, et alia ad infinitum). Without going off track, however, some things can be said.

There are a multitude of people who provide a multitude of benefits to society by volunteer work. Society receives many benefits, including not having to pay for that same work to be done, or foregoing the benefits of the work done. Some volunteers receive some benefits back (membership privileges in a group where others have to pay for that is an example) but many simply volunteer because they feel it is their civic duty. Many do that in addition to a regular “paid” job; others are not wage earners. Thus there are current examples of people doing work without pay in society, above and beyond the home maker.

It is not as if the homemaker is not contributing to the household overall benefit. There are costs associated with the work done (by having someone else do the work). and like most any job, there are home makers who do a better job than others.

There have been a number of articles about the cost of the second adult in a two-adult family going to work (clothes, transportation, food, day care, and etc.) showing that the actual return is much smaller than sometimes recognized - which puts an actual economic value on staying at home.

People who hire a house keeper are going to pay for that; that can establish the worth of that activity - vacuuming, sweeping, doing the laundry, dusting and etc.

Some people hire a nanny to assist with the children. That, too, can help to establish some value of the home maker.

And while the home maker may feel they are not being “paid”, they are also contributing to the overall household economic status in that someone else would have to be paid if they were not there. See three paragraphs up; should the home maker decide to take that job outside, it could actually cost the overall 3economic status of the home more than the net that the second income provides. Or not, based on skills and abilities of the two parties.

 

[otjm]

There is a practical answer to this bit of utopian thinking. It bloomed in the 60’s and early 70’s, and was the communal living system that the hippies set up.

How many communes still exist? Precious few; rather than society looking in on their system and saying “Wow! This is really cool, and we need to shift society to this system!”, society simply laughed and went on about reality. And the communes died off, one by one and two by two, as their system simply didn’t work.

There are still communes around; but they interact with the current economic system in that there are wage earners, and wages become part of the communal property.

Gia B’s list of the five members, all expressing a common sense answer to how something is going to be distributed shows that unless there is a clear set of rules as to how things will be distributed, a group is not going to survive as a group.

And once the rules are established, the group will become selective in that they will require others wishing to join, to live by those rules; and that will eliminate any number of people who want the general objectives or lifestyle but see the rules as needing to be different.

The reality of the world is that we have a very large number of people who have little or no work ethic. And work ethic is something which is necessary, whether we have the current economic system, a distributive system, a socialist system, a communist system, or any other system. The idea that people will do the work they love is a Pollyannaesque view of human nature. There is a tremendous amount of work out there that people don’t love; they do it because they need the pay. It is not for no reason that systems which have been Communist have been moving to a different economic system (anyone paying attention to China?).

Ask anyone who has mucked out a horse barn or cow barn. Shoveling manure is a necessity, not a job one “loves”; cleaning a poopy diaper is not a job one loves (and I had twins and I swear, if I changed one diaper I ended up changing three before I got things settled down).

a distributist system is not a lot more than a pipe dream. It can work to a limited extent within small groups of people who agree to a defined set of rules as to how the distributions will work. The problems with it are numerous, including not only the need for clearly defined rules (which will cause many to not join, or to join and not stay), but also the issue of the impact of incentive (or lack thereof).

 

[Fairwinds]

…a distributist system is not a lot more than a pipe dream. It can work to a limited extent within small groups of people who agree to a defined set of rules as to how the distributions will work. …

like a D&D game, with a dungeon master.

 

[otjm]

like a D&D game, with a dungeon master.

Not being a player of D & D, I will take your word for it.

 

[Morwenna]

Hi Della,

Thanks for bringing up an interesting topic which has generated some passionate discussion.

I don’t have anything specific to add, other than to recommend two books which I think may interest you:

Non-fiction: I Am Hutterite by Mary-Ann Kirkby. I recommend this because your descriptions of the Amish lifestyle seem closer to the Hutterite way of life, IMO.

Fiction: The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin. Some of what you wrote seems to reflect a modified form of anarcho-syndicalism, which is illustrated in this book. While it is fiction, I think the author is very fair in discussing the benefits and the pitfalls inherent in such a society (hence the book’s subtitle, “An Ambiguous Utopia”).

Hope you’ll enjoy these. I found them to be very thought-provoking and have re-read each several times.

 

[Fairwinds]

we had a dose of that fantasy world in college, had to read E. F. Schumacher’s Small is beautiful. if every day is a Renaissance Faire, sure, it works.

 

[Reep]

Without a market to dictate and hourly valuation variations, there wouldn’t be sufficient providers for the takers.

I want to monitor the waves along the beach, and be an advanced watchmen for marine animals in duress along the coastline. Preferably in the shade with some alcohol… I’ve put in 12 hours today.

Time to head home. Oh, my electric is out, can some lineman climb out of bed at 3am, risk his life at a job that’s so dangerous he’s exempt from life insurance… just because…

Or even better, overhearing this conversation:

Person A: “I’m simply astonished! You’ve banked more hours than I could have envisioned at your age! How’d you do it? You’re only a year older, almost able to retire from your hours bank, while I still haven’t gained one excess hour!”

Person B: “Simple, I dropped out of high school and have worked at a video store. Pretty easy most days, as we’re not that busy. Spent most of it just watching movies. It’s pretty pathetic that you haven’t banked any hours, how do you plan on ever retiring? What have you been doing the past ten years?”

Person A:“Sigh, I spent all of my twenties in medical school and than specializing. Haven’t had the chance to work other than a handful of internships and residency, as my studies have kept me too busy. I’m even in the whole, about ten years of hours for my education. Looks like I’ll never be able to retire. Yet alone, retire young like you.”

You are totally right. It’s a hair-brained scheme that will never work unless the workers are machines . . . Oh, that wouldn’t work either, unless the machines were equal too.