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.
Well, fine, but I noticed that you were lumping unfettered business and unfettered government together as the two were morally equivalent. I was pointing out that millions have suffered at the hands of socialist government, whereas, no where near as many have suffered at the hands of a free market capitalist based country.
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.
I believe the past history of the 20th century tells me to be very wary of government. It doesn’t tell me to be wary of capitalism or the free market to the degree that you and MOM seem to do. Forget about the “ideals” or absolutes. Just regular, garden variety socialism in practice has been very bad for people. The same can’t be said for capitalism.
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”.
Yes. I would agree with the principle that says we should go with free market solutions whenever possible over government solutions because the track record of government solutions is very dismal. In the case of “training workers” I would say that government should give tax breaks to businesses that help workers get trained. I see no reason to opt for government as the first solution to a problem because government doesn’t work as effectively as the market, imo.
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”.
Maybe the problem with capitalism is not the system so much as the values of those operating within the system. In capitalism, people are allowed to be cutthroat, hurt others at times, seek short term gain over long term gain, cut benefits, etc. On the other hand, you can get capitalists who have good values who see the “big picture” who understand its about profits of course (to keep the business going) but also about treating people fairly, giving good benefits, etc. As I mentioned, I work for a big business that is enlightened in this way. But in capitalism, not being enlightened, or being greedy and selfish is allowed. I don’t see how we can have a system that outlaws greed and short-sightedness, while at the same time allows people to make their own decisions. As William F. Buckley said, "the problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism. See the difference? So I guess the challenge is to promote catholic values in our society - I would take a capitalist society in which Catholics were making decisions while considering their CAtholic values, over a socialist system in which Catholics were making the decisions.
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.
Maybe not, but with government I have no choice but to do what they say, as they have an army. With corporate control, do I not have the choice to not buy their product?
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).
Yes, a perfect example of unfettered government - in this case, a branch of the government, the supreme court.
So, with the Free Market, anything that is legal is permitted.
Yes. We can work within a democratic system to change the laws we don’t agree with.
Another good example is recently
Amazon.com has been selling pro-pedophile books on-line. That is totally legal.
Yes, and Amazon was shamed into taking the book off their shelves and stopped selling it, do to pressure from society - their customers! Imagine, government didn’t even have to get involved.
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.
)