What "Distrubutism" Really Is

[reggieM]

It seems to me that, if businesses overstep, there is legal recourse. If government oversteps, there isn’t – because, in overstepping, the recourse was at best weakened and at worst eliminated.

If there are term-limits for politicians, that’s an advantage in fairness over business ownership which can continue in the same administration (or family) for decades. So, government leaders would have to be sensitive to the populace because they can lose their leadership position.

In the U.S., some big businesses are more powerful than government (and have a huge influence on government) for that reason.

 

[Abu]

reggieM
In the U.S., some big businesses are more powerful than government (and have a huge influence on government) for that reason

Some never learn; they make their own trouble.
Learn about the government finagling with free enterprise that has caused the depression and recessions. Then come back.

 

[ishii]

That sounds fine except that you really have to look at the common good in a long-term perspective. That’s more consistent with Distributism than with Free Marketism. In other words, if you establish “the Free Market” as an absolute, or as an ideal – then you’d have to oppose anything that restricts the market, on principle.

That’s the thing - I don’t believe the free market is flawless, as its nothing more than the sum total of all the decisions made by all of the consumers and producers in the economy at a given time and they can be wrong at times. However, experience tells me that the free market on balance does a better job than the government in deciding prices, supply, etc. Again, I keep reading posts that claim the free market is somehow “all or nothing” 100% or nothing absolute ideal. That is a straw man, imo.

Again, a good government, or a government that acts wisely for the benefit of the people (so that it does more good than harm) will take some actions to shape the culture. There are common sense laws already in place and there can be more or less, depending on the need.

I believe there is too much govt. regulation.

When I visit Europe, for example, people claim to me that it’s “socialist over there”. But I buy products at privately owned shops and get good quality things in free-market transactions all the time. There is more government control in some areas but there is less control in other areas also.

If you haven’t noticed, Europe is reeling from too much debt incurred from excessive spending on their entitlement programs, pensions, etc. They are running out of money and some want the party to never end - they are demonstrating in the streets. Hardly the example to hold up for America to emulate, hardly the wave of the future.

When you ask who is calling for an unrestricted Free Market, I think you have to look at much of the rhetoric coming out of the American-Calvinist right-wing where there are claims that the government is essentially evil. So, we hear “the government needs to stay out of our lives”. That’s a call for unrestricted Free Market. Now, you might say that “they don’t really mean it”. But they say it. They’ll either have to live with the consequences of unbridled capitalism (which causes many serious evils) or end up being hypocrites when they need the government to do important things for them.

I think what you’re describing is the views of those who think the govt. has overstepped its bounds and does more harm than good. It is a far cry ( and a convenient straw man) to say that those who think that the “govt. is best which governs the least” as being in favor of sweatshops, child labor, 12 day work weeks, etc. The people you describe as “right wing calvinists” are often very much in favor of the military which is a big govt. endeavor if there ever was one. I don’t think anyone is saying that the “govt should stay out of our lives” except for abortion rights advocates who say “hands off my body”.

It’s far better to take a Catholic view which sees the government as something good and necessary for society and to work so that the government does its job to help with the success and benefit of individuals, the community, the economy and the nation itself.

If you think govt. is something good, then you should go back and study the 20th century. There you will find all sorts of slaughters of innocent people by “governments” who though they knew what is best for everyone. I am not just talking about the leftist holocausts and government planned slaughters of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot (to name a few) but also the bombing of Dresden (U.S. and Britain) and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you have a good, virtuous people, then usually you will find good, enlightened self government. I don’t think Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, for example, are paragons of enlightened, virtuous government leaders. On the contrary, they are diametrically opposed to what the Catholic church stands for.

Ishii

 

[reggieM]

That’s the thing - I don’t believe the free market is flawless, as its nothing more than the sum total of all the decisions made by all of the consumers and producers in the economy at a given time and they can be wrong at times. However, experience tells me that the free market on balance does a better job than the government in deciding prices, supply, etc. Again, I keep reading posts that claim the free market is somehow “all or nothing” 100% or nothing absolute ideal. That is a straw man, imo.

That’s true and I agree with you here. The discussion goes to the extremes and that ends up with false conclusions. On one extreme are Free Market defenders who won’t admit that there are any problems at all with capitalism, or that the Free Market itself is sort of a sacred thing that fixes its own problems. From that, government is denounced as evil and it is claimed that the Free Market, left to itself, is the best solution. That’s a dangerous extreme.
On the other extreme are those who cannot admit that government can overstep its bounds and cause damage to individuals and society. They will claim that capitalism is evil in iself and the government will always act in the right way. That’s another false extreme.

If we establish the Free Market as an absolute, then any intervention in the market must be opposed. But we know, from common sense, that the market needs reasonable controls. Similarily, if we claim Socialism is the absolute good, then any private property or market commerce will be opposed. But that is totally unworkable even in Socialist dictatorships.

Anyway, we totally agree on this important point. It’s a mixture and we have to debate “more or less” government vs unrestricted Market.

I believe there is too much govt. regulation.

That may be true. But I’ll suggest also that you probably would agree that there is “too much” in some cases and “too little” in others. So, we have to have a standard that transcends the economic model. We look for the common good of society and then everything should work towards that goal. We have Catholic truths to guide us also.

I think what you’re describing is the views of those who think the govt. has overstepped its bounds and does more harm than good.

That’s true and they may have very good points. But let’s not go to an extreme and claim that an unrestricted Market is the sole answer, or that government is an evil in itself.

It is a far cry ( and a convenient straw man) to say that those who think that the “govt. is best which governs the least” as being in favor of sweatshops, child labor, 12 day work weeks, etc.

Yes, but that slogan is really not acurate or useful. What does it mean “governs the least”? The government should govern what it should govern. It should do it well. The idea of “more or least” is a comparison with something – but what? When there’s a national disaster, health crisis or war, the government shouldn’t just “do the least possible”.

In highly populated areas, more government is needed than in more sparse populations.
But the way I see it, better slogans would be “government is best when it does more good than harm”.

The people you describe as “right wing calvinists” are often very much in favor of the military which is a big govt. endeavor if there ever was one.

I fully agree and that’s what I said about hypocricy. They want a small government and then campaign for massive government spending (which includes much waste and bureaucracy) on the military. That creates a contradiction and hypocricy.

They should support “good government” in all the sectors where government rightly should be active. Yes, that means opposing government intrusion into areas that are best left to the public to decide on as individuals (like buying cheesburgers and french fries).
But if a certain food, by itself, directly causes illness in the population – that’s a different matter.

If you think govt. is something good, then you should go back and study the 20th century. There you will find all sorts of slaughters of innocent people by “governments” who though they knew what is best for everyone. I am not just talking about the leftist holocausts and government planned slaughters of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot (to name a few) but also the bombing of Dresden (U.S. and Britain) and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you have a good, virtuous people, then usually you will find good, enlightened self government. I don’t think Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, for example, are paragons of enlightened, virtuous government leaders. On the contrary, they are diametrically opposed to what the Catholic church stands for.

Ishii

Right, but I’m just talking in theory. Government is not, in itself, an evil. It’s absolutely necessary in society. We learn that from the Bible and in Catholic teaching.
There is no reason why evil people should necessarily be our government leaders. It does happen too often, but if all of the Catholics like Pelosi and Biden were true to the Faith, then we’d have a major improvement.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Better slogans would be “government is best when it does more good than harm”.

I agree. But we must be-careful not to confuse harm as being the absolute rule; since doing what is right can sometimes transcend potential suffering. For instance, if the government is faced with a choice of either supporting the murder of millions for the sake of big business, or suffering the potential loss of business in support of saving the lives of millions, then the government must make a moral choice that is consistent with the common dignity of human beings. Now, businesses can simply move else where if they find that the government does not support the murder of millions. Thus the government is faced with a moral dilemma. Should the people face potential starvation or support the murder of millions.

Option number 1: If private property is absolute, and If life was merely centred around survival and economic success, then the government would choose business, following the survival of the fittest, or the many over the few strategy. For example, they would have no choice in a situation where only a small percentage of the population have a huge proportion of the means to production and land, leaving a small proportion for those who make up 90 percent of the population. The nation, including its government would be held to ransom since the “human need”, the means to production, and the land, is in the hands of a small proportion of the populace, and thus the nation and the government must do what they say and live according to what that small group dictates. Thus we see how government can be undermined or totally overridden by the market place. The only function the government would have is to provide a puppet presence in society to make it seem as if democracy exists and government exists; when in reality the collection of big businesses would be the real rulers, owning the means of production, which in my eyes would make them not much different from a socialist state mistaken for true and honest capitalism.

Option number 2: But if the government is forced to recognise the transcendent dignity of every being which goes beyond material success in this life, and even private property, then the government must choose to rebuke the murder of millions despite the potential for increased poverty and starvation and seek to reorganise the system in a manner that would help override the potential damage done by those who choose to take the means of production else where. This may even mean that government would have to take back productive land and the means of production and distribute it widely among the populous. Those private organisations who would attempt to take the means of production and sell the land off to other countries else where at the expense of the common good would be guilty of treason, theft, and perhaps even murder in my opinion; since private property is only justified if it does not undermine the common good.

Its the private economies ability to hold peoples lives to ransom, which would prove that the present economic situation is immoral. The means of production ought to be widely distributed so that a few cannot blackmail the many in to accepting immoral standards. Thus if a person takes his business else where, this will not effect me since I have my own means to production and my own private property and land.

 

[reggieM]

One of the biggest abuses of the Free Market in the U.S. is the legal purchase and sale of products manufactured in countries that do not have the same legal requirements for employees and safety, etc. Why should American manufacturers have to compete with companies that do not have to follow the same policies?

As for those who promote unrestricted capitalism, try your favorite search engine with these terms:

“unbridled capitalism”
“unrestricted capitalism”
“Laissez-faire capitalism” or just “laissez-faire”
“unfettered capitalism”

… and you’ll see several places where these things are promoted and defended.

 

[reggieM]

I agree. But we must be-careful not to confuse harm as being the absolute rule; since doing what is right can sometimes transcend potential suffering.

True. When the government or the people determine what “the greatest good” or “doing harm” means, they have to measure against a standard and ideal. It would be a false goal to establish economic profit as the highest good. The dignity and development of human life must be higher than that.

Option number 1: If private property is absolute, and If life was merely centred around survival and economic success, then the government would choose business, following the survival of the fittest, or the many over the few strategy.

Excellent point. With my prior comments on various terms to search for, one that is very interesting is “Darwinian capitalism”.

Thus we see how government can be undermined or totally overridden by the market place.

True - that actually happens quite a lot because the companies become stronger and more powerful than the government. The government cannot survive without money from the companies, so that creates an unfair balance.

The only function the government would have is to provide a puppet presence in society to make it seem as if democracy exists and government exists; when in reality the collection of big businesses would be the real rulers, owning the means of production, which in my eyes would make them not much different from a socialist state mistaken for true and honest capitalism.

It takes courage but the people and the government have to be willing to suffer some economic difficulties (less profit) at times, in order to preserve the rights of the people and the culture of the community.

This may even mean that government would have to take back productive land and the means of production and distribute it widely among the populous.

If that was practical, then that would work well (that’s what the older Distributist theory would want). Today its less practical because there is less land and many do not know how to use the land – but the government can help subsidize a variety of businesses meeting many needs, instead of having monopolies dominate all of the commerce.

Those private organisations who would attempt to take the means of production and sell the land off to other countries else where at the expense of the common good would be guilty of treason, theft, and perhaps even murder in my opinion; since private property is only justified if it does not undermine the common good.

I agree. That’s another good example of how the government needs to protect the community from the Free Market. Otherwise, businesses would be able to sell off property to anyone – including people who will not use the land productively (or will damage the land).

This is big in the U.S. where farmland could be sold for less productive developments.

Its the private economies ability to hold peoples lives to ransom, which would prove that the present economic situation is immoral.

The present situation includes immoral actions from both private enterprise and the government – both are fighting for control.

The means of production ought to be widely distributed so that a few cannot blackmail the many in to accepting immoral standards. Thus if a person takes his business else where, this will not effect me since I have my own means to production and my own private property and land

Another way to look at it would be to have the population well-trained and fully capable of running a variety of businesses. It’s like the rule in the stock market – “diversify”. But the government should ensure that the people have the skills and opportunities to run businesses. That will strengthen the nation overall.

Companies themselves should consider how they invest their profits also.

 

[Abu]

reggieM
If we establish the Free Market as an absolute, then any intervention in the market must be opposed. But we know, from common sense, that the market needs reasonable controls.

There is no free market as an absolute anywhere, never has been, and never will be.

Failure to get to know the free enterprise laws discovered and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, and what they mean, is at the root of the confusion. People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why have laws exist to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

 

[ishii]

That’s true and I agree with you here. The discussion goes to the extremes and that ends up with false conclusions. On one extreme are Free Market defenders who won’t admit that there are any problems at all with capitalism, or that the Free Market itself is sort of a sacred thing that fixes its own problems. From that, government is denounced as evil and it is claimed that the Free Market, left to itself, is the best solution. That’s a dangerous extreme.

Again, I have not found anyone who proposes such a strict, capitalist system - no limits whatsoever. Maybe you can find those on the web who propose that, but I don’t think they have any power or ability to actually change things. Those who believe in unfettered government, on the other hand, are much larger in number and in positions to be able to affect policy.

On the other extreme are those who cannot admit that government can overstep its bounds and cause damage to individuals and society. They will claim that capitalism is evil in iself and the government will always act in the right way. That’s another false extreme.

If we establish the Free Market as an absolute, then any intervention in the market must be opposed. But we know, from common sense, that the market needs reasonable controls. Similarily, if we claim Socialism is the absolute good, then any private property or market commerce will be opposed. But that is totally unworkable even in Socialist dictatorships.

The thing I don’t understand throughout this discussion we’ve been having, (and its been fun and interesting) is there seems to be this view that the ideology of "unfettered, unbridled, no holds barred capitalism is somehow prevalent or that we are in danger of having such a system. Who is in any position of power is proposing such a system? I think the focus on the danger of the the unbridled capitalist system is out of proportion to what the reality is. When I look around, I see proponents of the free market system who would like to see much fewer regulations of business, but I don’t see them saying there should be no regulations at all.

Anyway, we totally agree on this important point. It’s a mixture and we have to debate “more or less” government vs unrestricted Market.

That may be true. But I’ll suggest also that you probably would agree that there is “too much” in some cases and “too little” in others. So, we have to have a standard that transcends the economic model. We look for the common good of society and then everything should work towards that goal. We have Catholic truths to guide us also.

That’s true and they may have very good points. But let’s not go to an extreme and claim that an unrestricted Market is the sole answer, or that government is an evil in itself.

Yes, but that slogan is really not acurate or useful. What does it mean “governs the least”? The government should govern what it should govern. It should do it well. The idea of “more or least” is a comparison with something – but what? When there’s a national disaster, health crisis or war, the government shouldn’t just “do the least possible”.

When we say “the government is best which governs the least” I take it to mean that if you look at history, you will find that the best governments “governed the least” and the times when government governed too much, people really sufffered.

Here is a challenge for you and Mind over matter: You talk about the extremes of unfettered capitalism, and the extreme of unfettered government and consider them morally equivalent and equally undesirable. Look at the 20th century and compare how many people have been murdered at the hands of “government” and how many have been murdered at the hands of business. I think an honest study of the history will show you that government has behaved far, far worse than anything business has ever dreamed of doing, such that I would be much more in fear of my life living under unfettered socialism than living under unfettered capitalism.

.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I agree. But we must be-careful not to confuse harm as being the absolute rule; since doing what is right can sometimes transcend potential suffering. For instance,*** if the government is faced with a choice of either supporting the murder of millions for the sake of big business, or suffering the potential loss of business in support of saving the lives of millions,*** then the government must make a moral choice that is consistent with the common dignity of human beings. Now, businesses can simply move else where if they find that the government does not support the murder of millions. Thus the government is faced with a moral dilemma. Should the people face potential starvation or support the murder of millions.

.

When has big business ever caused the murder of millions? If you want to talk about the murder of millions, shouldn’t you look at the actions of governments during the past hundred years? Your scenario does not seem based on reality.

Ishii

 

[DanteAlighieri]

If there are term-limits for politicians, that’s an advantage in fairness over business ownership which can continue in the same administration (or family) for decades. So, government leaders would have to be sensitive to the populace because they can lose their leadership position.

Really? The President is term-limited, and the current guy is completely deaf to the people, pushing massive spending bills and entitlement programs despite the outrage it generates. Term limits are a good idea, but they are NOT a guarantee of good governance, and certainly not a guarantee against corruption.

In the U.S., some big businesses are more powerful than government (and have a huge influence on government) for that reason.

This is a generalization with little basis in fact. Yes, some big corporations dump huge amounts of money into campaigns because they support the candidates, but that just further illustrates that politicians should be naively trusted no more than businessmen. Do you really think a power-hungry politician is more trustworthy than a money-hungry CEO, especially when the politician’s choices can impact the entire nation?

Peace,
Dante

 

[reggieM]

Again, I have not found anyone who proposes such a strict, capitalist system - no limits whatsoever. Maybe you can find those on the web who propose that, but I don’t think they have any power or ability to actually change things. Those who believe in unfettered government, on the other hand, are much larger in number and in positions to be able to affect policy.

I’m not arguing for unfettered government either – and Distributist ideas are directed against that kind of thing. Even a democractic government can be influenced so much by the market that it’s basically unrestrained in that way also.

The thing I don’t understand throughout this discussion we’ve been having, (and its been fun and interesting) is there seems to be this view that the ideology of "unfettered, unbridled, no holds barred capitalism is somehow prevalent or that we are in danger of having such a system.

It’s a question of degree and also of an ideology. There are many who claim that the overriding principle that we should follow is “less government” and a “more unrestricted market”. They establish those as ideals – as if they are solutions.

So, when a decision comes up … should government invest in training workers?
This supposed principle would guide the solution. “No, government should stay out of the market”.

So, it’s a push towards an unbridled capitalism. It may never get to that pure state, but the question is, why not?

I think the answer is “there are other, more important ideals needed to shape the economy than Free Marketism” This is where Distributist ideas contribute to the mix.

Who is in any position of power is proposing such a system? I think the focus on the danger of the the unbridled capitalist system is out of proportion to what the reality is. When I look around, I see proponents of the free market system who would like to see much fewer regulations of business, but I don’t see them saying there should be no regulations at all.

Ok, but what is their ideal and where do they draw the line? You used the term “common sense” and I agree. But that term doesn’t fit the rule of “less government is always better”. Common sense sees a bigger picture than just “making profit”.

When we say “the government is best which governs the least” I take it to mean that if you look at history, you will find that the best governments “governed the least” and the times when government governed too much, people really sufffered.

That’s a challenging view to deal with. I don’t know history well enough to say, but sometimes government has to take control. Probably during the barbarian invasions, there was a strong government influence. In the long history of the Roman Empire there might give some examples.

Distributism doesn’t take the side of government over private enterprise. In fact, it looks for more diverse, smaller private enterprise than what we have with monopoly control of business (and huge, global corporations).
So, there’s not much difference between government control and the control of society by monopoly corporations.

Look at the 20th century and compare how many people have been murdered at the hands of “government” and how many have been murdered at the hands of business. I think an honest study of the history will show you that government has behaved far, far worse than anything business has ever dreamed of doing, such that I would be much more in fear of my life living under unfettered socialism than living under unfettered capitalism.

Let’s consider that business supports the murder by the government. Business makes a lot of money on the weapons. There’s a huge business interest in the Iraq/Afghanastan war for example.

We have also, the abortion industry - right? That’s an example of what is available in a more-unrestricted Free Market. Our communities cannot forbid abortion clinics unless new legislation is written to make them illegal (and thus restrict the Free Market).

So, with the Free Market, anything that is legal is permitted.

Another good example is recently Amazon.com has been selling pro-pedophile books on-line. That is totally legal.

Actually, the American Free Market spreads a lot of evil around the world and that causes damage to people, communities, culture and the faith of millions.
We base our belief on “Freedom of Speech” – which is similar to ideas on unrestricted Free Market.

 

[reggieM]

Really? The President is term-limited, and the current guy is completely deaf to the people, pushing massive spending bills and entitlement programs despite the outrage it generates. Term limits are a good idea, but they are NOT a guarantee of good governance, and certainly not a guarantee against corruption.

True, they’re not a guarantee of good government. But they at least limit the influence of one party or leader. That would be different with a corporation, for example, that used influence to pollute a national resource. The only way to get rid of the leadership of that company is to boycott the products, and even that might not work.

The point here is that government and business have to work together. It shouldn’t be a war between the two. But both have different desires for power and that causes conflict.

This is a generalization with little basis in fact. Yes, some big corporations dump huge amounts of money into campaigns because they support the candidates, but that just further illustrates that politicians should be naively trusted no more than businessmen. Do you really think a power-hungry politician is more trustworthy than a money-hungry CEO, especially when the politician’s choices can impact the entire nation?

I fully agree that the community should watch out for both government and business.
Because neither of them has, in themselves, the standard that we should live by.

Many people use these false standards as their way of life, or cultural ideal.

“I want government control on everything, that’s the best thing for society”.
“I want unrestricted Free Enterprise, that’s the most important thing”.

Those are both empty ideas in themselves. Both the market and government need to be directed to higher values. Human society and life is not reducible to just making profit or controlling people by govenment.

Those are not the only two options – and that’s why Distributism is important.

Notice, in the discussion on Distributism, people take sides between Capitalism and Socialism.

But we already explained that our society has a mixture of business and government. Wise decisions will recognize the value and importance of both aspects – not pushing for one to win out against the other.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

When has big business ever caused the murder of millions? If you want to talk about the murder of millions, shouldn’t you look at the actions of governments during the past hundred years? Your scenario does not seem based on reality.

Ishii

Again I never said anything about what businesses are doing; i was talking about the potential evils big business can do if the government doesn’t step in and regulate the market toward the common good, its proper end, given the example that i made. That’s the second time you taken what i have said out of its obvious context.

I guess in your sweet world its not possible that some of the wars, evils, and tragedies of our history, have been funded by big business or was at least in some way motivated or coerced by market monopoly. Are you really that naive? I am not going to argue with you.

It seems that the mere hint of the idea of taking sainthood away from the corporate state causes you to pounce in its defense. Its like you have been programed. Maybe its you that is not willing to be open minded.

I am not going to go in to a debate about it, but i think you should look at what reggie is saying.

Let’s consider that business supports the murder by the government. Business makes a lot of money on the weapons. There’s a huge business interest in the Iraq/Afghanastan war for example.

We have also, the abortion industry - right? That’s an example of what is available in a more-unrestricted Free Market. Our communities cannot forbid abortion clinics unless new legislation is written to make them illegal (and thus restrict the Free Market).

So, with the Free Market, anything that is legal is permitted.

Another good example is recently Amazon.com has been selling pro-pedophile books on-line. That is totally legal.

Actually, the American Free Market spreads a lot of evil around the world and that causes damage to people, communities, culture and the faith of millions.
We base our belief on “Freedom of Speech” – which is similar to ideas on unrestricted Free Market.

:thumbsup:Good stuff!

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not arguing for unfettered government either – and Distributist ideas are directed against that kind of thing. Even a democractic government can be influenced so much by the market that it’s basically unrestrained in that way also.

It’s a question of degree and also of an ideology. There are many who claim that the overriding principle that we should follow is “less government” and a “more unrestricted market”. They establish those as ideals – as if they are solutions.

So, when a decision comes up … should government invest in training workers?
This supposed principle would guide the solution. “No, government should stay out of the market”.

So, it’s a push towards an unbridled capitalism. It may never get to that pure state, but the question is, why not?

I think the answer is “there are other, more important ideals needed to shape the economy than Free Marketism” This is where Distributist ideas contribute to the mix.

Ok, but what is their ideal and where do they draw the line? You used the term “common sense” and I agree. But that term doesn’t fit the rule of “less government is always better”. Common sense sees a bigger picture than just “making profit”.

That’s a challenging view to deal with. I don’t know history well enough to say, but sometimes government has to take control. Probably during the barbarian invasions, there was a strong government influence. In the long history of the Roman Empire there might give some examples.

Distributism doesn’t take the side of government over private enterprise. In fact, it looks for more diverse, smaller private enterprise than what we have with monopoly control of business (and huge, global corporations).
So, there’s not much difference between government control and the control of society by monopoly corporations.

Let’s consider that business supports the murder by the government. Business makes a lot of money on the weapons. There’s a huge business interest in the Iraq/Afghanastan war for example.

We have also, the abortion industry - right? That’s an example of what is available in a more-unrestricted Free Market. Our communities cannot forbid abortion clinics unless new legislation is written to make them illegal (and thus restrict the Free Market).

So, with the Free Market, anything that is legal is permitted.

Another good example is recently Amazon.com has been selling pro-pedophile books on-line. That is totally legal.

Actually, the American Free Market spreads a lot of evil around the world and that causes damage to people, communities, culture and the faith of millions.
We base our belief on “Freedom of Speech” – which is similar to ideas on unrestricted Free Market.

Wait a minute? Is the gun the killer, or, is it the person holding it and choosing to pull its trigger?

How can one blame a set of documents?

God bless,
jd

 

[Abu]

reggieM
the American Free Market spreads a lot of evil around the world and that causes damage to people, communities, culture and the faith of millions.

The laws of economics of free enterprise (Pope John Paul II’s “market economy” or “free economy”) developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics have nothing to do with harming anyone.
Now we have the gigantic falsehood that economic truths cause harm to even ‘faith”!

Absolutely no progress in reason and faith can be made by those so confused while this wild and woolly feeling persists.

Apart from some who know nothing about economics, there are those who also know nothing about those many countries steeped in graft and corruption, and often warring tribes and revolution, and which have profited little from the massive aid provided, and the great advances of great men like American Norman Borlaug who actually lived among them and showed them how to benefit from his genetically modified green revolution. Dr. Borlaug, who died September, 2009, is scarcely known in his own country. Borlaug was one of only six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. He was also a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honor.

 

[reggieM]

Wait a minute? Is the gun the killer, or, is it the person holding it and choosing to pull its trigger?

True, but the gun does not tell the person that killing someone would be a very good idea.

How can one blame a set of documents?

Well, words and ideas have consequences.

 

[JDaniel]

True, they’re not a guarantee of good government. But they at least limit the influence of one party or leader. That would be different with a corporation, for example, that used influence to pollute a national resource. The only way to get rid of the leadership of that company is to boycott the products, and even that might not work.

The point here is that government and business have to work together. It shouldn’t be a war between the two. But both have different desires for power and that causes conflict.

I fully agree that the community should watch out for both government and business.
Because neither of them has, in themselves, the standard that we should live by.

Many people use these false standards as their way of life, or cultural ideal.

“I want government control on everything, that’s the best thing for society”.
“I want unrestricted Free Enterprise, that’s the most important thing”.

Those are both empty ideas in themselves. Both the market and government need to be directed to higher values. Human society and life is not reducible to just making profit or controlling people by govenment.

Those are not the only two options – and that’s why Distributism is important.

Notice, in the discussion on Distributism, people take sides between Capitalism and Socialism.

But we already explained that our society has a mixture of business and government. Wise decisions will recognize the value and importance of both aspects – not pushing for one to win out against the other.

Reggie:

Let’s make some sense here: there are 6.0 million “big” businesses, under the aegis of the US government. (And, there are 21.5 million small businesses.) So, you are saying all of the “big” businesses are “evil,” or, are spreading “evil?” All 6.0 million of them? Or, could we include the 21.5 million small businesses, too. Or, are you saying that at some time or other, all of the 6 million “big” businesses have at one, or more, points in their durations, spread “evil” around the world?

I’m confused.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

True, but the gun does not tell the person that killing someone would be a very good idea.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand.

Well, words and ideas have consequences.

All by themselves?

God bless,
jd

 

[reggieM]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand.

JD - I think you were comparing a gun to an economic/social ideal.
But the gun does not teach anything whereas ideas are different.

All by themselves?

Ok, I know you’re not saying that writing and promulgating evil notions is not a sin, even if nobody acts on them. You are too smart and too good of a Catholic to say that.

Let’s not get sidetracked either. The topic is distributist ideas and the debate is on correctives needed to the Free Market.