What causes the rich to abuse the poor?

[Bubba_Switzler]

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

Sadly, this is all to typical of anti-LSF thinking: that “government concern” is a balance to the greed an selfishness of the free market. News flash: politicans are humans. So are bureaucrats and voters. Nor does the government have any monopoly on concern for the common good. Historically, governments have not only turned their back on the poor, they have been powerful instruments of oppression that no free market enterprise could possibly match.

Christian values are not pro-government values. Government is not more Christian its subjects. If anything, government is an inferior vehicle for expressing and realizing Christian values. See especially the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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?

It demonstrates that geography is often irrelevant to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

It means, for example, that all the Catholic reasons for locating decisions within the family and not large communities still apply even though we are spread out across international lines.

Are you arguing otherwise?

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.
And all over the heads of those who invest their all. And a community which doesn’t want a branch of a company to leave will have no choice.

You’ve been watching too many Holywood movies. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity applies as well to corporations and I guarantee that mid-level managers have far more authority and lattitude than does the simlarly ranked government bueracrat. There are libraries of business management books on employee empowerment and similar ideas.

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 )

Well, yes, you’ve defined subsidiarty well enough. What you have not defined is distributism and how it differs from subsidiarity. You have not explained why you chose to advocate distributism instead of subsidiarity.

Tell me how this works, please.

By enabling people to voluntearily come together for varioius purposes (including, especially, economic goals). That is the core idea of subsidiarity in opposition to centralization. I’m assuming that you are not advocating for centralization. The problem, instead, is that you are fixated on geographic locality and are missing out on the deeper meaning of subsidiarity.

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

No, I am merely pointing out that when government is bad it is really bad. That the lowest bueracrat has more power to ruin your life than the richest man. That giving power to government turns free market capitaism into crony capitalism, or worse.

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?

Loosly speaking, LFE holds that government should focus on preventing violence, theft, and fraud. These are obviously loose terms and there are gray areas we could debate all day. I don’t think we need to resolve the gray areas in order to move this discussion forward.

(For example, health inspection is an important service. But it doesn’t have to be provied by the government. If Acme Helath Inspectors certifies that a restaurant is safe and it proves to be otherwise then Acme an be held to account on grounds of fraudulent certification.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

And, in fact, there are very man small enterprises including oil fields. It is very common, for example, for an owner of land to lease miniral rights to a company. There are also many smaller companies that operate and service wells on land.

But more importantantly, see my point about subsidiarity in corporations in rseponse to “St Francis”.

Additionally, the distributist small businesses fetish is simply unwarranted. I’ll quote David Deavel:

Distributists’ core claim is that political freedom can only walk hand in hand with economic independence for nearly everyone. Belloc spoke dismissively of working for someone else’s business, claiming that it made a man a “wage slave.” But isn’t a small businessman or an independent farmer a “price slave,” dependent on every consumer who chooses to buy from him—or walk down the road to buy somewhere else? Except for the food you grow to eat yourself, every good or service a person obtains is the outcome of bargaining with others, to meet their respective needs. It might be more productive to call this “cooperation” rather than slavery. We have managed to raise living standards across the planet, and support a world population that would have simply starved to death 500 years ago, by increasing the division of labor—by freeing up economies so people can specialize in what they’re good at. Not everyone is good at running a business or managing a farm. In fact, only a minority of people want to pay the price of deferring gratification by saving their money to buy a business, then working the endless hours needed to keep it running, on the risk that they can successfully compete. That’s why most of us choose to work for someone else. Does it really make us slaves?

intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/08/05/whats-wrong-with-distributism/

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity does not tell us that big nations like the US or China must be broken up into small principalities. It tells us, instead, a preference in responsibilities across levels of government. The same thing applies to companies.

Whether or not Exxon is fulfilling the Catholic principle of subsidiarity is a question that can only be addressed by a study of it’s operations. It is not inherently in violation by it’s very size any more than the US or China.

Nor the Catholic Church!

 

[St_Francis]

It demonstrates that geography is often irrelevant to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

It means, for example, that all the Catholic reasons for locating decisions within the family and not large communities still apply even though we are spread out across international lines.

You did not answer me questions, and what you are saying here is so vague I can’t get any meaning out of it.

Are you arguing otherwise?

I’m not arguing anything on this point because I don’t understand what you are saying.

You’ve been watching too many Hol[l]ywood movies. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity applies as well to corporations and I guarantee that mid-level managers have far more authority and lattitude than does the simlarly ranked government bueracrat. There are libraries of business management books on employee empowerment and similar ideas.

No, I actually know people in many different areas of the business world. And when push comes to shove, the bottom line is what counts. The reason they started all this control-sharing is that it made companies more money. If a manager does not make enough money, he is fired. If a division does not make enough money, it’s sold off. If another location offers a way to increase profits, the division is moved regardless of the consequences on the employees.

Hence my questions about the family above.

The concept of control-sharing which you describe was put into place because it made more money as people went for quality, so it’s not an example os subsidiarity on that account, but in addition, it is still very limited–the manager of a division could not suddenly decide to change the type of business altogether, could he?

Well, yes, you’ve defined subsidiarty well enough. What you have not defined is distributism and how it differs from subsidiarity.

Distributism is seeing economics as a one if a number of parts of one’s life, and in which there is local control as opposed to centralized control. One of the ways in which this is accomplished is to spread ownership, actual ownership, of the means of production out among the population.

This is the practical application of the principle of subsidiarity in the economic field, and in the political field. You seem to see distributism as a way to reign in businesses, but it is also a way to reign in government as well.

The LFE are all for getting rid of government control; I see the government’s role as being like a referee among the various groups which would be making their own rules rather than seeing the government as the regulator of everything. OTOH, I am not against tariffs and other protective actions if they are requested by the more local levels.

You have not explained why you chose to advocate distributism instead of subsidiarity.

To me, advocating distributism is advocating subsidiarity in the economic and political arenas. I also advocate subsidiarity in other areas of government, such as welfare (taken generally), the environment, etc.

However, I would leave foreign affairs and the military to the national government, which is mostly what it is for.

By enabling people to voluntarily come together for varioius purposes (including, especially, economic goals). That is the core idea of subsidiarity in opposition to centralization.

I think that the larger the group of people involved, the more some get in charge and others marginalized. The end result is centralization, which occurs in economic enterprises as well as governments.

The problem, instead, is that you are fixated on geographic locality and are missing out on the deeper meaning of subsidiarity.

No, no geography, but size, nexus of responsibility, authority, mediating structures but ultimately, the place of the individual and the family in society and the world.

No, I am merely pointing out that when government is bad it is really bad. That the lowest bueracrat has more power to ruin your life than the richest man. That giving power to government turns free market capitaism into crony capitalism, or worse.

Distributism is not socialism, you know. Distributists *also *believe these things about the government, and don’t want the government micromanaging.

Loosly speaking, LFE holds that government should focus on preventing violence, theft, and fraud.

Eh, not really. The government is not really the group which should be put in charge of *prevention *of these activities. What the government does is prosecute after the crime has been committed. The consequence of the hassle involved in government prosecution may or may not suffice to deter a criminally-minded person. Asking the government to be in charge of preventionis giving way too much control over to them.

These are obviously loose terms and there are gray areas we could debate all day. I don’t think we need to resolve the gray areas in order to move this discussion forward.

(For example, health inspection is an important service. But it doesn’t have to be provied by the government. If Acme Helath Inspectors certifies that a restaurant is safe and it proves to be otherwise then Acme an be held to account on grounds of fraudulent certification.)

And I certainly agree that health inspection as well as many other functions currently allocated to the government is something could easily be accomplished by private entities. I have not run across anything contrary to this in my learning about distributism, have you?

 

[Carlan]

I just say nothing is ever perfect. A nations Government isn’t, nor are the people who compose it.
This democracy of ours certainly is not perfect but it is the best we have and I do not like to hear our people bad mouth it. Pray for it yes, and may God have mercy on us all.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You did not answer me questions, and what you are saying here is so vague I can’t get any meaning out of it.

What I am saying is that the transnationality of corporations, families, non-profit organizations, religions, etc. is entirely irrelevant to their role in, or conformance to, Catholic teaching on subsidiarity.

So never mind Exxon for the moment, tell me how the transnationality of my family has any meaning whatsoever in terms of subsidiarity.

No, I actually know people in many different areas of the business world. And when push comes to shove, the bottom line is what counts. The reason they started all this control-sharing is that it made companies more money. If a manager does not make enough money, he is fired. If a division does not make enough money, it’s sold off. If another location offers a way to increase profits, the division is moved regardless of the consequences on the employees.

There is no question that companies, large and small, are focused on the bottom line. The question is whether the size of a corporation has any bearing on subsidiarity. In my experience it is employees of large corporations who have the greatest lattitude to avoid short-term financial demands. It’s those running small companies who seem most concerned with making payroll.

The concept of control-sharing which you describe was put into place because it made more money as people went for quality, so it’s not an example os subsidiarity on that account, but in addition, it is still very limited–the manager of a division could not suddenly decide to change the type of business altogether, could he?

Subsidiarity is not anti-profit or anti-capitalist. It doesn’t matter that a corporation finds profit in following subsidiarity, that is in fact to be expected.

Distributism is seeing economics as a one if a number of parts of one’s life, and in which there is local control as opposed to centralized control. One of the ways in which this is accomplished is to spread ownership, actual ownership, of the means of production out among the population.

This is the practical application of the principle of subsidiarity in the economic field, and in the political field. You seem to see distributism as a way to reign in businesses, but it is also a way to reign in government as well.

Alright, finally we arrive at the nub of the matter. Subsidiarity does not demand the redistribution of ownership, “the means of production”, among the population. And it does not demand smaller corporations (or other entities). Subsidiarity is satisfied at Exxon when it hands employees the tools they need to do their job and give them the authority to do it. It does not matter that those tools are owned by Exxon (and that Exxon is owned by pensioners in ND).

This redistribution of “the means of production” is, of course, not a new idea. Karl Marx proposed it in the 19th century long before Chesterton was a gleam in his daddy’s eyes.

The LFE are all for getting rid of government control; I see the government’s role as being like a referee among the various groups which would be making their own rules rather than seeing the government as the regulator of everything. OTOH, I am not against tariffs and other protective actions if they are requested by the more local levels.

LFE agree that government needs to be a referee, to set some basic rules. The crucial difference is that LFE is more suspicious of government and unwillnig to entrust it with a large refereeing role and especially not to a role of redistribution of the means or production.

To me, advocating distributism is advocating subsidiarity in the economic and political arenas. I also advocate subsidiarity in other areas of government, such as welfare (taken generally), the environment, etc.

However, I would leave foreign affairs and the military to the national government, which is mostly what it is for.

I think that the larger the group of people involved, the more some get in charge and others marginalized. The end result is centralization, which occurs in economic enterprises as well as governments.

Well, as I’ve argued, distributism is not the only way to go about realizing subsidiarity. And it’s not the best way.

No, no geography, but size, nexus of responsibility, authority, mediating structures but ultimately, the place of the individual and the family in society and the world.

Neither geogrpahy nor size is relevant.

Distributism is not socialism, you know. Distributists *also *believe these things about the government, and don’t want the government micromanaging.

It is a close cousin to it.

Eh, not really. The government is not really the group which should be put in charge of *prevention *of these activities. What the government does is prosecute after the crime has been committed. The consequence of the hassle involved in government prosecution may or may not suffice to deter a criminally-minded person. Asking the government to be in charge of preventionis giving way too much control over to them.

Fair enough, discouraging would be a better word.

And I certainly agree that health inspection as well as many other functions currently allocated to the government is something could easily be accomplished by private entities. I have not run across anything contrary to this in my learning about distributism, have you?

I am no expert in distributism so I won’t argue this.

 

[St_Francis]

What I am saying is that the transnationality of corporations, families, non-profit organizations, religions, etc. is entirely irrelevant to their role in, or conformance to, Catholic teaching on subsidiarity.

So never mind Exxon for the moment, tell me how the transnationality of my family has any meaning whatsoever in terms of subsidiarity.

I have no idea–you brought your family into this and I have no idea why or what you are trying to show. Nor have you amswered the questions I asked.

There is no question that companies, large and small, are focused on the bottom line. The question is whether the size of a corporation has any bearing on subsidiarity.

Well, I think it does and you think it doesn’t. I see that decisions in large corporations are made without regard to local issues, without regard to the effect even on the employees. I believe that these things occur because the decisions are made by people whose job it is to stay legal but otherwse ignore all considerations except that of the bottom line–the reponsibility is so diffused that no one is responsible.

In my experience it is employees of large corporations who have the greatest lattitude to avoid short-term financial demands. It’s those running small companies who seem most concerned with making payroll.

Until of course it becomes more economically viable to shut the plant, move overseas, or whatever. Then the entire community is negatively affected. I don’t think power should be that centralized.

Subsidiarity is not anti-profit or anti-capitalist.

Nor is distributistism.

It doesn’t matter that a corporation finds profit in following subsidiarity, that is in fact to be expected.

My point is that the motive for instituting subsidiarity was profit. If something other than subsidiarity were found to be more profitable, the corporation would switch over in a New York second.

Alright, finally we arrive at the nub of the matter. Subsidiarity does not demand the redistribution of ownership, “the means of production”, among the population.

Distributism does not demand redistribution either.

And it does not demand smaller corporations (or other entities).

In your opinion. I believe that I have shown that it does.

Subsidiarity is satisfied at Exxon when it hands employees the tools they need to do their job and give them the authority to do it. It does not matter that those tools are owned by Exxon (and that Exxon is owned by pensioners in ND).

How do you figure this?

This redistribution of “the means of production” is, of course, not a new idea. Karl Marx proposed it in the 19th century long before Chesterton was a gleam in his daddy’s eyes.

It would be really nice if the LFE advocates would stop arguing against distributism on the basis of a lie, like Protestants arguing against Catholicism because “Catholics worship Mary.”

LFE agree that government needs to be a referee, to set some basic rules. The crucial difference is that LFE is more suspicious of government and unwillnig to entrust it with a large refereeing role

By a role as referee, I mean the subsidiaric role of mediating between more local entities. I should probably have said mediate rather than referee, since the referee is overseeing all the time.

and especially not to a role of redistribution of the means or production.

Again, distributism does not demand this.

Well, as I’ve argued, distributism is not the only way to go about realizing subsidiarity. And it’s not the best way.

I don’t know that distributism is not the only way–as an idea more interested in people’s having more control within their lives and the decentralization of power, it does not advocate firmly for one precise system of organization, merely proposing boundaries and suggesting alternatives. The solutions will probably be extremely varied and not really constitute a single “way to go.”

I happen to disagree with you on many points, the first being that a transnational corporation is an example of subsidiarity, that economic actors are fighting evil which is located in the government, etc.

Neither geogrpahy nor size is relevant.

I disagree and note that you ignored the 4 other concerns I mentioned.

It is a close cousin to it.

How so?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have no idea–you brought your family into this and I have no idea why or what you are trying to show. Nor have you amswered the questions I asked.

Your claim is that transnatinoalism somehow impairs subsidiarity. I am challenging you to apply it to my family. Obviously I don’t think transnatinonalism has any bearing on subsidiarity for families, etc.

Well, I think it does and you think it doesn’t. I see that decisions in large corporations are made without regard to local issues, without regard to the effect even on the employees. I believe that these things occur because the decisions are made by people whose job it is to stay legal but otherwse ignore all considerations except that of the bottom line–the reponsibility is so diffused that no one is responsible.

Right. In any case, this is a question of fact.

Until of course it becomes more economically viable to shut the plant, move overseas, or whatever. Then the entire community is negatively affected. I don’t think power should be that centralized.

If a family run business shuts down for the same reason the impact is the same.

Nor is distributistism.

And, yet, you keep offering comments that suggest a suspicion of profit and capital.

My point is that the motive for instituting subsidiarity was profit. If something other than subsidiarity were found to be more profitable, the corporation would switch over in a New York second.

My point is that subsidiarity does not demand that it be followed for the purpose of following it.

Distributism does not demand redistribution either.

I simply don’t believe it.

In your opinion. I believe that I have shown that it does.

You have claimed that it does.

How do you figure this?

Let’s take the example of the Catholic Church. Does subsidiarity demand that it be broken up into smaller religious institutions? No. Does subsidiarity demand that the United States be annulled into states and states into cities? No.

It would be really nice if the LFE advocates would stop arguing against distributism on the basis of a lie, like Protestants arguing against Catholicism because “Catholics worship Mary.”

It is not a lie that Marxism preceeded Distributism. It is more reasonable to infer that Chesterton borrowed ideas from Marx than that he discovered them independently.

By a role as referee, I mean the subsidiaric role of mediating between more local entities. I should probably have said mediate rather than referee, since the referee is overseeing all the time.

Again, distributism does not demand this.

And, again, I do not believe it.

I don’t know that distributism is not the only way–as an idea more interested in people’s having more control within their lives and the decentralization of power, it does not advocate firmly for one precise system of organization, merely proposing boundaries and suggesting alternatives. The solutions will probably be extremely varied and not really constitute a single “way to go.”

I happen to disagree with you on many points, the first being that a transnational corporation is an example of subsidiarity, that economic actors are fighting evil which is located in the government, etc.

Well, sure, let’s not overlook our points of agreement in our disagreement.

I disagree and note that you ignored the 4 other concerns I mentioned.

I didn’t comment on them because I didn’t disagree with them.

How so?

Marx’ ultimate objective was a redistribution of the means of prodution. Communism was a means to that end. Many of Chesterton’s complaints against the industries of his day are echos of Marx’ accusations. There have since been many variations on that ideal, too many to list here. Distributism fits well within that family of ideologies.

 

[Least]

I don’t know that distributism is not the only way–as an idea more interested in people’s having more control within their lives and the decentralization of power, it does not advocate firmly for one precise system of organization, merely proposing boundaries and suggesting alternatives. The solutions will probably be extremely varied and not really constitute a single “way to go.”

I happen to disagree with you on many points, the first being that a transnational corporation is an example of subsidiarity, that economic actors are fighting evil which is located in the government, etc.

The argument has progressed as though the participants are ignoring the person-in-the-room of whom you are speaking. Business entities are PEOPLE, People of whom you have allowed/ asked for/ sanctioned/ bought-into/approved/acknowledged/celebrated their creation more than your own birthdays because they (more than you) deliver the things you want (WHICH FOR THE ARGUMENT OF DISTRIBUTISM IS STUFF/MATERIAL WEALTH YOU WISH TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHO TO GIVE AWAY TO). According to the rules of the particular jurisdictions that they were “formed under” they already have people that speak and decide for them and for the disposition of their assets.

Business entities are allowed/asked/sanctioned/bought into/ approved /acknowledged/ celebrated, etc. to entice and entitle those willing to attempt such undertakings to have some form of personal indemnification from (some of) the liabilities that may be later incurred by their attempted business entity. Such entities ALREADY PROVIDE value added in some form or fashion to the economies in which they are allowed to operate.

You may wish to bleed them dry, but it would be (most likely) better for all if you were wholly prevented from that. It is safer to consider them as what you’ve asked them to be and that is a person. I will fight for them as hard as I would fight for you.

 

[St_Francis]

Your claim is that transnatinoalism somehow impairs subsidiarity. I am challenging you to apply it to my family. Obviously I don’t think transnatinonalism has any bearing on subsidiarity for families, etc.

I am not concerned with geography per se. If a man owned an (name removed by moderator)ort/export business, then it would by necessity be spread over 2 or more nations. I don’t see a problem with that involving subsidiarity.

Right. In any case, this is a question of fact.

So what is the fact, in your opinion? Are you denying that these things happen?

If a family run business shuts down for the same reason the impact is the same.

Few family businesses ij a town with nothing but faamily businesses are the foundation of the town’s economy. If a family business shuts down, yes, it will cause some problems, but probably not cause a collapse of the town’s exonomy. This is also a part of distributism, that one business entity not hold that much power.

Moreover, a family business owned by people who have ties to the community probably will not shut down because it is not profitable *enough, *because they can accomplish it cheaper somewhere else, because the union is refusing to negotiate.

And, yet, you keep offering comments that suggest a suspicion of profit and capital.

I disagree with profit being the sole determining factor of what is done in a business. I disagree with the multiple absentee ownership which encourages that.

My point is that subsidiarity does not demand that it be followed for the purpose of following it.

Yes but one cannot point to something and say, well, they practice subsidiarity so they must be all right, if the people are not practicing it for the purpose of following it. The large corporations practice subsidiarity to some extent because it is profitable. If it ceased to be profitable, it would be thrown out the window. Subsidiarity is not inherent in LFE.

I simply don’t believe it.

You asserted that distributism has something to do with redistribution, you need to show the evidence for that assertion.

You have claimed that it does.

I showed why I have come to that conclusion; it’s not like I just said it does and that’s it.

Let’s take the example of the Catholic Church. Does subsidiarity demand that it be broken up into smaller religious institutions? No. Does subsidiarity demand that the United States be annulled into states and states into cities? No.

Things don’t work the same way in business as they do in the Church or government.

It is not a lie that Marxism preceeded Distributism. It is more reasonable to infer that Chesterton borrowed ideas from Marx than that he discovered them independently.

Which ideas of Chesterton’s do you think he borrowed from Marx?

And, again, I do not believe it.

Again, you are asserting that distributism demands redistribution; what is your evidence for this?

Well, sure, let’s not overlook our points of agreement in our disagreement.

I think I missed something here.

I didn’t comment on them because I didn’t disagree with them.

Do you think that large corporations have a negative effect on them?

Marx’ ultimate objective was a redistribution of the means of prodution. Communism was a means to that end. Many of Chesterton’s complaints against the industries of his day are echos of Marx’ accusations.

Mrs X lives in a part of town which has been overrun by drug dealers and addcts. The neighbors complain about this incessantly and have decided to form a posse and kill all the drug dealers and addicts. Mrs X thinks that starting a Legion of Mary and trying to lead the drug dealers and addicts to Christ would accomplish the same goal.

Wow, the neighbors want to rid the area of drug dealers and addicts. So does Mrs X. The neighbors came up with their plan before Mrs X came up with hers.

Therefore, Mrs X’s plan *must *be related to the neighbors’s plan!

 

[triumphguy]

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

Not all, in fact I would say not even the majority of the rich are rich because of their own honest efforts, creativity and imagination.

Perhaps a significant minority?

 

[triumphguy]

In What’s right/wrong about distributism I posted a critique of Distributism and invited distributists to refute it. None dared.

We had a couple posters who called themselves Distributists but agreed both with what the article author said was right about Distributism and what was wrong with it.

But there were a few other posters who wanted to attack Laissez-faire economics as the presumptive alternative to Distributism.

The purpose of this thread is to delve into that tangential subject.

I think it is fair to say that the Church has generally taken the view that some regulation is necessary to prevent the rich from abusing the poor and that a Laissez-faire economy would fail to prevent such abuse.

I am going to disgree here with the Church on this. But before I do, I’d like to frame that disagreement properly.

So why should anyone listen to you?

 

[triumphguy]

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

To the extent that you are right… The middle class.

The rich are socking all their money away in offshore accounts, while relying on Government corporate welfare to keep their businesses alive.

Don’t you remember 2008?

 

[St_Francis]

The argument has progressed as though the participants are ignoring the person-in-the-room of whom you are speaking. Business entities are PEOPLE, People of whom you have allowed/ asked for/ sanctioned/ bought-into/approved/acknowledged/celebrated their creation more than your own birthdays because they (more than you) deliver the things you want (WHICH FOR THE ARGUMENT OF DISTRIBUTISM IS STUFF/MATERIAL WEALTH YOU WISH TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHO TO GIVE AWAY TO). According to the rules of the particular jurisdictions that they were “formed under” they already have people that speak and decide for them and for the disposition of their assets.

Business entities are allowed/asked/sanctioned/bought into/ approved /acknowledged/ celebrated, etc. to entice and entitle those willing to attempt such undertakings to have some form of personal indemnification from (some of) the liabilities that may be later incurred by their attempted business entity. Such entities ALREADY PROVIDE value added in some form or fashion to the economies in which they are allowed to operate.

You may wish to bleed them dry, but it would be (most likely) better for all if you were wholly prevented from that. It is safer to consider them as what you’ve asked them to be and that is a person. I will fight for them as hard as I would fight for you.

There’s a lot more to corporations than limited liability, and no one is talking about bleeding them dry.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not concerned with geography per se. If a man owned an (name removed by moderator)ort/export business, then it would by necessity be spread over 2 or more nations. I don’t see a problem with that involving subsidiarity.

Alright, then, let’s set this aside.

So what is the fact, in your opinion? Are you denying that these things happen?

I don’t think that the evidence supports the view that large corporations are more harmful than small corporations. When corporations become large under LFE (and that is an important provision) it is because there is some economy of scale involved that brings economic benefits.

The reason though, that I stressed this as a matter of fact is that I often hear from distributists an appeal to encyclicals over facts. The pope said…therefore it must be true, evidence be damned.

Few family businesses ij a town with nothing but faamily businesses are the foundation of the town’s economy. If a family business shuts down, yes, it will cause some problems, but probably not cause a collapse of the town’s exonomy. This is also a part of distributism, that one business entity not hold that much power.

Moreover, a family business owned by people who have ties to the community probably will not shut down because it is not profitable *enough, *because they can accomplish it cheaper somewhere else, because the union is refusing to negotiate.

The first problem you encounter is that family businesses will lack the capital that larger corporations have (except where there is no economy of scale). So you will have less of them to begin with and they will employ less people. What happens is that a big corporation opens a plant in a town and benefits the town for a while and then shuts the plant. All you can see is the shut plant. You forget everything that came before it.

I disagree with profit being the sole determining factor of what is done in a business. I disagree with the multiple absentee ownership which encourages that.

I doubt anyone would say that profit is the sole determinant but it is the dominant one. On the other hand, non-profit organizations, by definition, do not make profit the dominant factor. Under LFE you will have both and it is simply a matter of experience that you need both for-profit corporations and non-profit organizations and that mixing the two doesn’t work well. We could spend a lot of time discussing why that is the case but it is a fact of life.

Yes but one cannot point to something and say, well, they practice subsidiarity so they must be all right, if the people are not practicing it for the purpose of following it. The large corporations practice subsidiarity to some extent because it is profitable. If it ceased to be profitable, it would be thrown out the window. Subsidiarity is not inherent in LFE.

I simply disagree. Subsidiarity is not just something we practice for brownie points in the afterlife. It has real-world consequences. That corporations notice those consequences is a good thing.

You asserted that distributism has something to do with redistribution, you need to show the evidence for that assertion.

The evidence is this: distributism holds that big transnational corporations are unjust and that multiple ownership is unjust. Whether distributists intend to rectify that alleged injustice or whether they are simply inviting less scrupulous politicians to do so is of little matter. At a minimum, they are providing the moral justification for forced redistribution of property.

Things don’t work the same way in business as they do in the Church or government.

The fact that they don’t work the same is irrelevant. Things don’t work the same in Exxon and Walmart. The same principles apply to all social institutions.

The biggest, most hierarchal institution on the face fo the earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

Which ideas of Chesterton’s do you think he borrowed from Marx?

I’ll simply list two: the dehumanization of labor in the industrialization of England and the abhorance of widlely divergent economic standings.

I think I missed something here.

You mentioned several things we agreed on such as opposition to centralization. I’m acknowledging that.

Do you think that large corporations have a negative effect on them?

I don’t think the size of an institution is a determinant of it’s affect on them.

Mrs X lives in a part of town which has been overrun by drug dealers and addcts. The neighbors complain about this incessantly and have decided to form a posse and kill all the drug dealers and addicts. Mrs X thinks that starting a Legion of Mary and trying to lead the drug dealers and addicts to Christ would accomplish the same goal.

Wow, the neighbors want to rid the area of drug dealers and addicts. So does Mrs X. The neighbors came up with their plan before Mrs X came up with hers.

Therefore, Mrs X’s plan *must *be related to the neighbors’s plan!

See above.

 

[triumphguy]

Alright, then, let’s set this aside.

I don’t think that the evidence supports the view that large corporations are more harmful than small corporations.

Er… what about the corporations and banks that were “too big to fail” and which then sucked trillions out of the world’s economy in “quantitative easing?” That’s just one example…

When corporations become large under LFE (and that is an important provision) it is because there is some economy of scale involved that brings economic benefits*** to them***.

The reason though, that I stressed this as a matter of fact is that I often hear from distributists an appeal to encyclicals over facts. The pope said…therefore it must be true, evidence be damned.

You could say that about condoms or any other matter of morality on which the church has spoken… and you would be equally as wrong

The first problem you encounter is that family businesses will lack the capital that larger corporations have (except where there is no economy of scale). So you will have less of them to begin with and they will employ less people. What happens is that a big corporation opens a plant in a town and benefits the town for a while and then shuts the plant. All you can see is the shut plant. You forget everything that came before it.

In Canada, small businesses account for 98% of companies, employ 48% of working Canadians in the private sector and contribute over 30% to our country’s GDP, proving to be an economic driver and an important source of job creation.
–Government of Canada, July 2012

Some thoughts on your post.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Some thoughts on your post.

There is a whole realm of crony capitaism that runs directly againt LFE.

Not every statement by the pope and bishops is of equal importance or credibility:

Distributists who are Catholics (that is, most of them) also tend to treat papal encyclicals as if every word in them were infallible—which is not what the Church says about them. Don’t trust me on that. Pope Leo XIII was cautious about the kind of authority he claimed, and how he applied it:

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. . . Men must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute. . . . These things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” (171)

Similarly, Pius XI admitted in Quadragesimo Anno #42 that there are limits to what moral theologians can say in the economic sphere because “economics and moral science each employs its own principles in its own sphere.” In #41 he referred to “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Distributists are not so modest; they claim to find in papal statements a ready-made template for using government power to reform the entire economy, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Want to know who denied that popes offer such a program? Pope John Paul II, who wrote in Centesimus Annus, “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.” (#3)

Distributists sometimes claim that their economic views, backed by infallible papal authority, offer a “third way” between socialism and capitalism. Again, John Paul II disagrees, writing in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis “The Church’s social doctrine is not a ‘third way’ between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own.” (41). He goes on:

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 another. 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. (43)

In other words, there is no ready-made Christian, Catholic, or papal system of economics. The Church lays out general principles, and leaves citizens the freedom and the duty to apply them—as part of their calling as laymen.

intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/08/05/whats-wrong-with-distributism/

Inequalities are not, in and of themselves, a violation of subsidiarity or any other Catholic teaching. There are many other causes of inequality. And capitalism, in general, raised the living standards of the poor far more than charity.

The Catholic Church did not grant itself a waiver from Catholic social teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

Alright, then, let’s set this aside.

Sounds good.

I don’t think that the evidence supports the view that large corporations are more harmful than small corporations. When corporations become large under LFE (and that is an important provision) it is because there is some economy of scale involved that brings economic benefits.

It seems like rather than grapple with points, you dismiss them. You do not offer evidence in support of your view either.

The reason though, that I stressed this as a matter of fact is that I often hear from distributists an appeal to encyclicals over facts. The pope said…therefore it must be true, evidence be damned.

Have I said that?

The first problem you encounter is that family businesses will lack the capital that larger corporations have (except where there is no economy of scale). So you will have less of them to begin with and they will employ less people.

What you say is somewhat true, in that in an area of family businesses, fewer people will be employed, but that is because so many are involved in running their own business.

I have been associated with a few areas which were once mainly small businesses, no big businesses. People were mostly employed and most of what they needed was easily available. What brought down the one I know the most about was changes in government policy on the federal level which caused the shut-down of two of the three main areas of business; several business enties were involved.

What happens is that a big corporation opens a plant in a town and benefits the town for a while and then shuts the plant. All you can see is the shut plant. You forget everything that came before it.

I have been around long enough to see what was there before.

I doubt anyone would say that profit is the sole determinant but it is the dominant one. On the other hand, non-profit organizations, by definition, do not make profit the dominant factor. Under LFE you will have both and it is simply a matter of experience that you need both for-profit corporations and non-profit organizations and that mixing the two doesn’t work well. We could spend a lot of time discussing why that is the case but it is a fact of life.

There are plenty of businesses which manage to make a profit without focusing on economies of scale and the like. For example, Oprah Winfrey recently complained about a situation involving a handbag which cost $38,000. There are people in the US for whom that is their annual income! So someone could sell just a few of those handbags each year and manage quite nicely, no? Because sometimes price is not the only issue. I buy gas locally; it usually costs me a few cents more per gallon but it is more convenient and I am happy to pay for that.

I simply disagree. Subsidiarity is not just something we practice for brownie points in the afterlife. It has real-world consequences. That corporations notice those consequences is a good thing.

Before the corporations figured out that it is good for the bottom line, they did not practice control-sharing. Corporations are not practicing subsidiarity overall because they jettison it whenever it is not profitable, nor do they practice it outside the corporation.

The evidence is this: distributism holds that big transnational corporations are unjust and that multiple ownership is unjust. Whether distributists intend to rectify that alleged injustice or whether they are simply inviting less scrupulous politicians to do so is of little matter. At a minimum, they are providing the moral justification for forced redistribution of property.

What is your definition of redistribution? I realize that I probably shoudl have asked this earlier, but I forgot.

The fact that they don’t work the same is irrelevant. Things don’t work the same in Exxon and Walmart. The same principles apply to all social institutions.

The biggest, most hierarchal institution on the face fo the earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

I disagree with you on this. The state and the Church are societies complete in themselves, “perfect societies,” and a business is not. A business is only a part of society and must fit *into *the society in a different way than the government or the Church hierarchy.

I’ll simply list two: the dehumanization of labor in the industrialization of England and the abhorance of widlely divergent economic standings.[/quotes]
These are problems noticed by many more people than Marx and Chesterton. What I was asking about was on the solution side. Which of Chesterton’s proposed *solutions *do you think he got from Marx?

You mentioned several things we agreed on such as opposition to centralization. I’m acknowledging that.\quote]
You do not seem to acknowledge it in the sphere of economics, only of government.

I don’t think the size of an institution is a determinant of it’s affect on them.

Did you read what I wrote about this? Do you have a response to what I wrote?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It seems like rather than grapple with points, you dismiss them. You do not offer evidence in support of your view either.

I am contented that we agree that this is a matter of fact to be established by research. I’ve given a basic argument for my view but I don’t expect to convince you here.

Have I said that?

Nope. But it is all too common.

What you say is somewhat true, in that in an area of family businesses, fewer people will be employed, but that is because so many are involved in running their own business.

For purposes of our discussion we can consider someone running a business as self-employed. What we are interested in comparing is people doing productive and valued work either employed by a big corporation, employed by a family business, or self-employed.

To see why we need big businesses and capitalism consider the example of a nuclear plant. Those babies are very expensive to build and operate. While the nuclear industry has long desired to build smaller plants, that is simply not possible today. They must be big to be economical. Now maybe Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could afford to operate a nuclear plant as a family business but even they would be taking on enormous risk in the process. The better solution is to spread the cost among a large number of shareholders and that, in turn, gives rise to corporate governance.

I have been associated with a few areas which were once mainly small businesses, no big businesses. People were mostly employed and most of what they needed was easily available. What brought down the one I know the most about was changes in government policy on the federal level which caused the shut-down of two of the three main areas of business; several business enties were involved.

I understand that it bothers many people when a big chain displaces local businesses. I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically but we can look at the notorious example of Walmart. Walmart has grown because it had a successful retailing strategy that resulted in lower prices for consumers. When enough consumers switch from the old local business to buying a Walmart the local business goes under. Under LFE that’s a good thing, especially when we are talking about providing things to the poor.

I have been around long enough to see what was there before.

You need to keep both sides of the coin in mind and not just complain about the end of a gravy train. But resiliant communities don’t just die when one plant closes, people change jobs, maybe change industries. That is life.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are plenty of businesses which manage to make a profit without focusing on economies of scale and the like. For example, Oprah Winfrey recently complained about a situation involving a handbag which cost $38,000. There are people in the US for whom that is their annual income! So someone could sell just a few of those handbags each year and manage quite nicely, no? Because sometimes price is not the only issue. I buy gas locally; it usually costs me a few cents more per gallon but it is more convenient and I am happy to pay for that.

You’re going to cite Oprah as a symbol of capitaistic excess? I’ll tell you who is most concerned about price: the poor. But we all benefit in the long run from economies of scale and other economic improvements even if we no longer see them. Would you be willing to pay extra for a hand-crafted automobile? Do you hate Henry Ford for inventing the assembly line and bringing the car to the unwashed masses?

Before the corporations figured out that it is good for the bottom line, they did not practice control-sharing. Corporations are not practicing subsidiarity overall because they jettison it whenever it is not profitable, nor do they practice it outside the corporation.

Before the prodigal son was serving slop to pigs he did not honor his father.

What is your definition of redistribution? I realize that I probably shoudl have asked this earlier, but I forgot.

Yes, I certainly do not mean to condemn charity in any of it’s various forms. I am referring, rather, to redistribution by coercion, by the operation of law or by theft or fraud. But I would also include legal impediments to growth or innovation. Medieval China is a classic example of where that leads.

I disagree with you on this. The state and the Church are societies complete in themselves, “perfect societies,” and a business is not. A business is only a part of society and must fit *into *the society in a different way than the government or the Church hierarchy.

Well, I would grant that the Church is perhaps the best social institution. The state is far from a perfect society and is, usually, inferior to businesses. It’s a necessary evil, so to speak. Of course, they are all in a sense a part of society, each serving a different role. Governments, like businesses, come and go over time. Nations rise and fall.

But insofar as the Church is, as you claim, a perfect society, we would do well to study it’s example. It’s big, huge!. It’s transnational. It is answerable to no national government. It takes money out of one community to give it to another. And yet, although it is obviously in violation of distributism, it still is in conformance with subsidiarity. The pope does not micromanage parish priests. He is, in many ways, a servant to the bishops and the bishops the priests. And the priests serve their parishes.

These are problems noticed by many more people than Marx and Chesterton. What I was asking about was on the solution side. Which of Chesterton’s proposed *solutions *do you think he got from Marx?

Redistribution of the means of production, a phrase you have used several times already.

You do not seem to acknowledge it in the sphere of economics, only of government.

I hold business, government, and even the Church to the same standards. I can see a role for a federal government (e.g. the United States) but it is one of great limitation (national defense, mainly).

Did you read what I wrote about this? Do you have a response to what I wrote?

Yes, I did. If this is really important to you then perhaps we should first talk about a methodology for investigating the claim. I am not content to rely on anecdotal argument for the reasons noted above.