What causes the rich to abuse the poor?

[SamH]

As I said, this was back in the 70s and 80s. Agricultural work like setting plants and picking fruit don’t require lots of education. Many manufacturing jobs did not require lots of education.

Now many of these jobs have been outsourced: they are done in other countries. We say it’s because of the cheaper labor, but in the lower echelon jobs it’s also because the rules of welfare and the “cliffs” made it difficult for low-income people to work.

People would say those people should not be on welfare, maybe not, but when costs are rising and you want to care for your family, then your options are limited when “the rich” have conspired against you.

Who do you think is paying for all that welfare that keeps people from working?

 

[St_Francis]

Not just “technically” free and not just free of government. Under LFE, free of violence, theft, and fraud from anyone. If you think this hypothetical poor person should have better choices, give them to him. You can offer him charity, you can offer him a job. But when government stands between the poor and a potential employer (for example) they are not doing the poor a service.

I guess you are talking about minimum wage. I agree with Dr Thomas Sowell that minimum wage is a bad idea.

The dire necessity does not render the choice merely “technical”. The free market does an amazingly good job of providing us not only with luxuries but life’s essentials.

Tell that to all the people who are currently out of work. Tell that to all those whose jobs were outsourced.

Life is hard sometimes. It doesn’t follow that government can fix it by forbiding employment at low wages.

The situation I mentioned was real–the government was not involved, but the boss did not want to pay increased unemployment rates by laying off an employee, who was thus totally stuck in a job in which the employer had cut the hours but not the requirements, in an area which was suffering from a sudden collapse in employment rates.

You brought up the complexity of various human arrangements and the resulting difusion of responsibility. I am attempting to explain that life is complex by its very nature and our human relationships simply match that complexity. Inert matter is realtivly simple as compared to a living organism. An ameba is simple compared to a mouse. A mouse to a human. Human relationships have grown in complexity over the eons. Etc.

And some of the complexity is unnecessary and destructive, and is created by certain types of human-created systems of organization.

Government mandating simplicty is a recipe for a disaster.

I disagree. I think government-created complexity has proven to be a disaster in all areas and should be deconstructed.

That’s just a shallow euphemism.

??? Why is what I said shallow? Why is it a euphemism? What is it a euphemism for?

People have control over their own choices and that has a tremendous impact on their wellbeing. But we also depend on one another in ways that we simply cannot fathom and that is a good thing.

I agree with you and think that a system of organization which takes that into account would be a great improvement over what we have now.

 

[Lochias]

Actually the poor abuse the rich.

A bigger, riper, steaming load I have never seen on this website. Congrats, I think you just made my jaw hit the keyboard.

The rich pay for public improvements and services all out of proportion to their individual benefit.

Poor babes. To whom more is given, more is expected.

 

[Lochias]

But very few seem to want to put forth the effort needed - beyond buying a lottery ticket.

Clearly. ALL of those destitute, poverty-ridden people who scrape and claw just to put food on the table ***just don’t want to put the effort ***into not being in a hellish, never-ending nightmare.

Are you listening to your mouth-words at all, here?

 

[Lochias]

Who do you think is paying for all that welfare that keeps people from working?

Poor babes, can’t buy that solid-gold toilet to go with their luxury BMW, 'cause the soiled, stupid masses have to have a morsel or two…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I guess you are talking about minimum wage. I agree with Dr Thomas Sowell that minimum wage is a bad idea.

I’m glad we agree on that and I appreciate your citing Dr Thomas Sowell.

Tell that to all the people who are currently out of work. Tell that to all those whose jobs were outsourced.The situation I mentioned was real–the government was not involved, but the boss did not want to pay increased unemployment rates by laying off an employee, who was thus totally stuck in a job in which the employer had cut the hours but not the requirements, in an area which was suffering from a sudden collapse in employment rates.

I would happily tell them that the main reason that they are out of a job is beacuse of the benevolence of big government. Hey, I’m not painting LFE as utopia, just the best realistic option. People will still lose jobs but chornic unemployment is directly the result of do-good government.

And some of the complexity is unnecessary and destructive, and is created by certain types of human-created systems of organization.

To be sure, but the point is that complexity is not unnatural and usually it has a perfectly valid basis.

But the reason that it is an imporant issue is this: Hayek and others noted the impossibility of central planning due to the very complexity of human affairs that we are discussing. Nobody understands the network of human relationships but too many people thing that they should be able to and that their inability to understand it is a nefarious plot against their wellbeing or an obstacle to benevolent government solutions.

I disagree. I think government-created complexity has proven to be a disaster in all areas and should be deconstructed.

To be sure, things get complicated when one goverment “fix” causes problems that require other government “fixes”.

??? Why is what I said shallow? Why is it a euphemism? What is it a euphemism for?

If you were really interested in genuine local control you would have cited the Catholic principle of subsidiarity about which there is no controversy. Instead you cited distributism. Why was that? What are you seeking from distributism that you cannot get from subsidiarity?

I agree with you and think that a system of organization which takes that into account would be a great improvement over what we have now.

Simply put, I believe that LFE is that system of organization. I know you are searching for something better but every fix for LFE creates greater problems primarily by empowering government which then becomes a tool of abuse.

 

[SamH]

Poor babes, can’t buy that solid-gold toilet to go with their luxury BMW, 'cause the soiled, stupid masses have to have a morsel or two…

No - I can’t afford to send my kids to college because the welfare state stole 30% of my paycheck.

 

[SamH]

A bigger, riper, steaming load I have never seen on this website. Congrats, I think you just made my jaw hit the keyboard.
.

Sometimes reality slaps you upside head in a surprising way.

Poor babes. To whom more is given, more is expected.

So you agree that people on welfare are taking too much.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m glad we agree on that and I appreciate your citing Dr Thomas Sowell.

I would happily tell them that the main reason that they are out of a job is beacuse of the benevolence of big government. Hey, I’m not painting LFE as utopia, just the best realistic option. People will still lose jobs but chornic unemployment is directly the result of do-good government.

To be sure, but the point is that complexity is not unnatural and usually it has a perfectly valid basis.

But the reason that it is an imporant issue is this: Hayek and others noted the impossibility of central planning due to the very complexity of human affairs that we are discussing. Nobody understands the network of human relationships but too many people thing that they should be able to and that their inability to understand it is a nefarious plot against their wellbeing or an obstacle to benevolent government solutions.

To be sure, things get complicated when one goverment “fix” causes problems that require other government “fixes”.

If you were really interested in genuine local control you would have cited the Catholic principle of subsidiarity about which there is no controversy. Instead you cited distributism. Why was that? What are you seeking from distributism that you cannot get from subsidiarity?

Distributism is based on the principle of subsidiarity; however, I thought that since this discussion arose from the discussions on distributism vs LFE that it would be ok to mention distributism.

In fact, I would say that the one main problem I have with LFE is that it makes no concession to subsidiarity.

Another problem I have is that LFE will lead naturally to either crisis, government involvement, or both.

Simply put, I believe that LFE is that system of organization. I know you are searching for something better but every fix for LFE creates greater problems primarily by empowering government which then becomes a tool of abuse.

It seems to be a common misconception among LFE supporters that distributism advocates something it does not. That makes discussion very difficult.

 

[manualman]

It seems to be a common misconception among LFE supporters that distributism advocates something it does not. That makes discussion very difficult.

Seriously! It seems like every discussion devolves into accusations of any government intervention in markets being a case of Marxists wearing clever disguises. It boggles me that LFE advocates so thoroughly understand the risks of the abusive power of big government, but are so blithely blind to the risk of the abusive power of their oligarchs. Do these guys REALLY want to return to the days of the corporate trusts?

Lochias, I thought they ran all the guys like you out of Texas years ago! You holed up in Austin??

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Seriously! It seems like every discussion devolves into accusations of any government intervention in markets being a case of Marxists wearing clever disguises. It boggles me that LFE advocates so thoroughly understand the risks of the abusive power of big government, but are so blithely blind to the risk of the abusive power of their oligarchs. Do these guys REALLY want to return to the days of the corporate trusts?

The trouble is this: all the warts of real-world LFE can’t come close to the depradations of government. I forget who said: the richest man has nowhere near the power to ruin your life that the lowest government bureaucrat has.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Distributism is based on the principle of subsidiarity; however, I thought that since this discussion arose from the discussions on distributism vs LFE that it would be ok to mention distributism.

In fact, I would say that the one main problem I have with LFE is that it makes no concession to subsidiarity.

Another problem I have is that LFE will lead naturally to either crisis, government involvement, or both.

It seems to be a common misconception among LFE supporters that distributism advocates something it does not. That makes discussion very difficult.

I’m not a saying it’s not ok to mention distributism. In the second post I demanded an alternative (as opposed to just complaining about the shortcomings of LFE). And I accept that Distributism is based on subsidiarity but my question is: what does it add over it that subsidiarity is not sufficient for you? Naturally I have a hard time fathoming how you could view LFE as making no concession to subsidiarity when it is, in fact, the best example of it.

It’s certainly true that LFE can lead to crisis precisely because it seeks to limit the free exercise of power. The argument is often made that evil needs a relief valve so let the politicians do their mischief in hopes that they will limit their damage. But history demonstrates that this is simply a formula for creeping damage to so society and we are beginning to see this around the world.

 

[Lochias]

Sometimes reality slaps you upside head in a surprising way.

Yup. Posts full of bullplop can do that to a person.

So you agree that people on welfare are taking too much.

I agree that alien clowns from Dimension X have more bearing on reality than your posts to this thread.

I’ve edit this post for charity. Suffice it to say that I hope you never make office somewhere.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not a saying it’s not ok to mention distributism. In the second post I demanded an alternative (as opposed to just complaining about the shortcomings of LFE). And I accept that Distributism is based on subsidiarity but my question is: what does it add over it that subsidiarity is not sufficient for you? Naturally I have a hard time fathoming how you could view LFE as making no concession to subsidiarity when it is, in fact, the best example of it.

How is Exxon an example of subsidiarity?

To me, distributism is the embodiment of subsidiarity. LFE is not, because it admits of no boundaries except no violence, no fraud, and no theft. Subsidiarity involves control being maintained at the most local level possible, LFE creates businesses which escape the control of even the largest national governments.

It’s certainly true that LFE can lead to crisis precisely because it seeks to limit the free exercise of power.

What do you mean by this? Whose power?

The argument is often made that evil needs a relief valve so let the politicians do their mischief in hopes that they will limit their damage. But history demonstrates that this is simply a formula for creeping damage to so society and we are beginning to see this around the world.

Well, I have never heard that argument and am not permitted to say what I think of it on this board

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How is Exxon an example of subsidiarity?

Exxon is one of several oil companies. I’m no expert on the oil industry but, generally speaking, oil companies own facilities and employ people to produce oil to sell. It is a local solution in the sectoral, not geogrpahical sense. How many corporations are there in the world, do you suppose? Lots.

It’s also the case that a corporation like Exxon is composed of business units, facilities, departments, etc. A hierarchy/network of interconnected smaller units. People who work in these smaller units tend to interact locally and managers tend to make local decisions. It’s not as if the CEO directs each and every employee from behind his desk.

To me, distributism is the embodiment of subsidiarity. LFE is not, because it admits of no boundaries except no violence, no fraud, and no theft. Subsidiarity involves control being maintained at the most local level possible, LFE creates businesses which escape the control of even the largest national governments.

It’s not at all obvious to me that businesses ought to be under the thumb of national governments. I can’t imagine why anyone who is concerned with subsidiarty would be citing national governments as an operable moral actor. About the only thing conceivably less local than a national government would be the UN.

I’m still unclear on why you are arguing for distributism instead of subsidiarity. Are you claiming them to be equal?

What do you mean by this? Whose power?

The power of those who would do evil, of course, and, more generally, those who seek to use violence, theft, or fraud against their fellow man.

Well, I have never heard that argument and am not permitted to say what I think of it on this board

I will presume, then, that you are not advancing that argument and so will assume, also, that you won’t try to justify a little intervention out of fear of greater intervention.

 

[St_Francis]

Exxon is one of several oil companies. I’m no expert on the oil industry but, generally speaking, oil companies own facilities and employ people to produce oil to sell. It is a local solution in the sectoral, not geogrpahical sense. How many corporations are there in the world, do you suppose? Lots.

Oh, I see, local can mean a transnational corporation… right.

It’s also the case that a corporation like Exxon is composed of business units, facilities, departments, etc. A hierarchy/network of interconnected smaller units. People who work in these smaller units tend to interact locally and managers tend to make local decisions. It’s not as if the CEO directs each and every employee from behind his desk.

But to whom are all these local units responsible? The CEO doesn’t have to micromanage, but the employees in all these units better act in concert with what the CEO plans or else. They, in their positions, are not in a position to bargain or to act for the benefit of the locality instead of Exxon.

Not to mention that all the profits of the units are take away from the communities where they are located.

It’s not at all obvious to me that businesses ought to be under the thumb of national governments. I can’t imagine why anyone who is concerned with subsidiarty would be citing national governments as an operable moral actor. About the only thing conceivably less local than a national government would be the UN.

I think that businesses should be responsible to the locality in which they are located. The fact that transnational corps are *not even *responsible to national governments, which are much bigger, more shows the extent of the problem; it is not my suggested ultimate solution.

I’m still unclear on why you are arguing for distributism instead of subsidiarity. Are you claiming them to be equal?

Not completely equal but I did say that distributism is based on subsidiarity.

The power of those who would do evil, of course, and, more generally, those who seek to use violence, theft, or fraud against their fellow man.

Oh, businesses are in the business of limiting the power of people who want to do evil?

???

I will presume, then, that you are not advancing that argument and so will assume, also, that you won’t try to justify a little intervention out of fear of greater intervention.

What?!?!?! This does not follow from the previous argument *at all. *

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Oh, I see, local can mean a transnational corporation… right.

Yes, it can. Is that really a shock to you?

My family is transnational. Does that mean that the Catholic principle of subsidiarity does not apply to us?

But to whom are all these local units responsible? The CEO doesn’t have to micromanage, but the employees in all these units better act in concert with what the CEO plans or else. They, in their positions, are not in a position to bargain or to act for the benefit of the locality instead of Exxon.

Not to mention that all the profits of the units are take away from the communities where they are located.

Every corporation has a formal hierarchy but informal networks of commitments and work relationships. Obviously some coordination is entailed else the company could be broken up but the relationship between different business units and plants is often negligable.

Profits flow one way, investment another. Communities that don’t want a plant will find a way to make them unwelcome, unfortunately. See e.g. Walmartphobia.

I think that businesses should be responsible to the locality in which they are located. The fact that transnational corps are *not even *responsible to national governments, which are much bigger, more shows the extent of the problem; it is not my suggested ultimate solution.

Not completely equal but I did say that distributism is based on subsidiarity.

So if they are not equal then we need to figure out what distributism adds (or takes away) from subsidiarity. Why is it so hard for you to answer this?

The local operations of corporations obviously will abide by the laws of their locality. Even a small town.

Oh, businesses are in the business of limiting the power of people who want to do evil?

LFE does.

What?!?!?! This does not follow from the previous argument *at all. *

So are you now back to arguing for a little intervention to prevent more intervention? I’m getting confused.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, it can. Is that really a shock to you?

My family is transnational. Does that mean that the Catholic principle of subsidiarity does not apply to us?

Oh, you are serious!

So, your family is transnational–does that mean that a member of your family in another country can decide that your immediate family all have to move to another state? Does it mean that you can decide that a member of your extended family in another country needs to leave the family?

Every corporation has a formal hierarchy but informal networks of commitments and work relationships. Obviously some coordination is entailed else the company could be broken up but the relationship between different business units and plants is often negligable.

Oh, I’m sure everyone stays on board with the overall company plan lest they be fired, so naturally it is not that important to micromanage. All that has to be checked is the final results.

And if the final results are not good enough, then heads will roll.

Profits flow one way, investment another.

And all over the heads of those who invest their all.

Communities that don’t want a plant will find a way to make them unwelcome, unfortunately. See e.g. Walmartphobia.

And a community which doesn’t want a branch of a company to leave will have no choice.

So if they are not equal then we need to figure out what distributism adds (or takes away) from subsidiarity. Why is it so hard for you to answer this?

It’s not hard for me to answer; it just seemed too obvious. Subsidiarity is a principle or organization and distributism is a proposal of forms for the organization. Like a sculpture of Our Lady–we say, this is a depiction of Our Lady, or we say, this is a framework of small i-bars and rebars covered with a shaped metal sheet. (OK, obviously I am not a sculptor )

The local operations of corporations obviously will abide by the laws of their locality. Even a small town.

[sarcasm]And have *no *influence whatsoever over those laws, I’m sure! [/sarcasm]

LFE does.

Tell me how this works, please.

So are you now back to arguing for a little intervention to prevent more intervention? I’m getting confused.

I see that you are equating government intervention with evil in a bait-and-switch argument.

Under LFE, the only regulation of a business is from the government. You say that the government ought to regulate *only *violence, theft, or fraud. So, does violence include unsanitary conditions which lead to illness in the customers who have no options in the food they buy? So would acceding to a little government intervention–health regs and inspections–to preclude gross government intervention–being shut down–be so truly evil?

 

[manualman]

It’s also the case that a corporation like Exxon is composed of business units, facilities, departments, etc. A hierarchy/network of interconnected smaller units. People who work in these smaller units tend to interact locally and managers tend to make local decisions. It’s not as if the CEO directs each and every employee from behind his desk.

This is precisely why megacorporations are less human than locally owned companies. In a corporation the size of Exxon (not that I have any insight to them specifically), the manager responsible for a particular oil field area reports to a regional supervisor, who reports to a regional VP, who reports to a corporate VP, who reports to the COO, who reports to the CEO. In such a model, said oil field manager only has ONE route for career advancement: big short term profits from his area of responsibility. Should he achieve this, he will be promoted and relocated, almost certainly away from his current place of residence. Thus, the very corporate structure divorces him from the normal human motivations to give a damn about the local consequences of his business decisions.

Had that oil field been owned and operated by Mom&Pop Drilling, LLC their motivation is ALSO to make money. But they also LIVE there, are raising their kids there, all their friends and many family are there. This reality affects business decisions and operational patterns. It’s common sense (no longer common, sadly) that such an operation will care FAR more about the long term impact on local water and air quality of their operational practices.

This is why distributism says that 150 Mom&Pop Drilling companies are better than ONE Exxon, even if the former makes for more costly oil in the short run. How should Distributism achieve this? Some may advocate command and control government solutions. Personally, I think the best way is to set up corporate tax structures such that locally owned and controlled companies are taxed at lower rates than corporations owned by corporations owned by corporations (i.e. Exxon’s sprawling network). There’s no seizure there, nor opportunity for corruption. The market is just set up to discourage dehumanizing business models and encourage more human ones.

 

[Carlan]

Laissez faire with no protections is only ideal for the greedy and selfish… Government concern should be a balance concerning the common good of all the people. Turning your back on the poor and less fortunate should not be the way of a Christian values nation.Peace Carlan