What do you think of Distributism?

[manualman]

Gee, Manualman…that sounds a lot like “an equal distribution of the means of production.” to me.

I am very skeptical of any idea that needs to MODIFY our tax and legal system.

I had an excellent distributist experience this morning. I learned of a small HVAC repair guy from friends whom I called to replace the 24V transformer on my furnace this morning (wife didn’t want to wait 3 days for mail order, can you imagine?). The fellow used to work for a large local company but got tired of only making pennies on the dollar for the work he did, so he went into business himself. He gets it. He’s not going to get RICH doing what he does. He’s charging $200/hour which will set him up well, but never make him rich after you account for all his overhead, deadbeats, downtime, etc. His goal is not “excessive accumulation of wealth.” His goal is to get to keep what he earns instead of seeing the bulk of it skimmed off by an investor who manages technicians.

Distributism posits that society is better off when every HVAC tech owns his own van and runs his own shop and gets to make a decent living instead of just being an employee who is driven to work longer and longer hours for less and less pay so that the investors of the employing company can reap a higher return.

Socialism is a failure because it doesn’t account for original sin. Humans are ALL sinful, not just the rich. Thus, there is nobody virtuous enough to run a socialist government and even if there were, the people aren’t virtuous enough to work hard in spite of no economic incentive.

Distributism respects the free market, but also recognizes its weaknesses. Original sin also works against a virtuous operation of free markets, but via avarice instead of sloth. Distributism is the idea that we can HAVE free markets, but still build structures that innately (i.e. not requiring personal intervention) check the ability of man’s sinfulness to ruin everything.

 

[manualman]

Ahh…so distributism is “out to soak the rich”. ???

No wonder the socialists are so excited about the prospects of distributism.
…

That is an interesting statement. Who is the “we” that gives incentive to humans?

Always the same buzz phrases. Why? A system in which the very wealthy pay much more of the burden of government services is not “soaking them” it’s simply a method of apportioning the cost of government in which those with plenty must contribute more than those with little. I’m not personally ready for anarchy, thanks.

The “we” are the citizens of the society in which we live. The voters and the taxpayers. We decide how the tax and business regulations should work. Or we used to before only millionaires were eligible to be politicians. We don’t GIVE the incentives to humans. We build systems that recognize the strengths and flaws of human nature that objectively exist. Socialism fails because it doesn’t do that well. Unrestrained robber baron economies is what gave birth to socialism/communism in the first place (reactionaries). To avoid either immoral extreme is the challenge of long term statesmanship and citizenship.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Without weighing in on the question of differential taxes or “soaking the rich”, I want to point out that distributism is incompatible with modern technology. It might be fine for an all-agrarian economy where having land equates to having the “means of production”. But much of our modern economy is high-tech. As I mentioned before, who, in an ideal distributist society is going to invent and manufacture the MRI machine? Now you might argue that we don’t need to look inside our bodies for tumors. If it is our time to go, it is our time to go. And perhaps we don’t need the Golden Gate Bridge. We could continue to cross in little boats. Even the modern automobile, with all its gadgets and safety features and high power would be impossible if everyone worked in their own little family-run business. The fact is it takes a certain threshold of concentrated effort to achieve many of the things we take for granted in modern society. And often that threshold is very high, requiring many committed employees. In other words, a corporation.

Now when distributists speak of “ownership of the means of production”, what do they mean? Is it ownership in the sense of “own and control absolutely”? Or is it ownership in the sense that I might own some stock in IBM? Because if it is the latter, then I can conceive of a practical implementation of distributism. Just structure the laws to favor corporations that have a high percentage of employees owning stock in the corporation. There are some corporations today that operate that way. Would employee-owned corporations qualify as distributism? That would eliminate my main objection to it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is the straw man you always build up before knocking it down. It’s untrue. Distributism is NOT a utopian idealistic scheme that seeks to create equality. It’s an idea for modifying the underlying basis of the tax and legal system in such a way that the resulting market forces TEND to create a more broad based distribution of ownership of those means of production than modern American - style capitalism does. (I say modern to differentiate today from the era of the USA’s Homestead Act which was possibly the greatest and most distributist government policy in the history of the planet. Unless you were an American Indian, of course - another subject).

It’s a great shame that there are so many versions of what Distributism is and how it could be implemented. While I agree with the above in part, I do not to so in toto. I think the poster in post #2 had it right. I do not see any necessity of encouraging the individual acquisition of productive assets by discouraging the “bigs” with taxation.

In my opinion, true Distributism is more a cultural or personal thing. How do I, as a would-be Distributist, go about acquiring and preserving productive, inheritable assets? What are the barriers to it, and how do I overcome them? What assets am I most likely to be able to accumulate, given my station in life and my skills? How do I avoid excessive consumerism in my own life and in that of my family? How do I live below my means?

I will say, however, that there are some things in the law that could be changed in order to encourage the individual and family acquisition of productive assets. One would be getting rid of regulations that prevent one’s doing so. Right now, this administration is on the cusp of regulating all waters of the U.S., including ponds and dry washes. That is going to be a terrible burden on the capital of people who are farmers and ranchers, but a boon to “big agriculture”. Another example could be prohibiting “non-economic” pricing differentials by manufacturers. If a manufacturer can justify (e.g. by demonstrating shipping efficiencies) selling to Walmart at greatly lower prices than to “Joe’s tool store”, fine. But not just because Walmart is a bigger customer.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan Cobalt;12447529:

Gee, Manualman…that sounds a lot like “an equal distribution of the means of production.” to me.

I am very skeptical of any idea that needs to MODIFY our tax and legal system.[/QUOT

And you blame us for being utopian? In reality, your the ones living in a capitalist utopia that you are unwilling to modify at all.

On the contrary. I would LOVE to modify our inefficient government regulated economy to a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire Capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and Church.

[/quote]

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Distributism posits that society is better off when every HVAC tech owns his own van and runs his own shop and gets to make a decent living instead of just being an employee who is driven to work longer and longer hours for less and less pay so that the investors of the employing company can reap a higher return.

That’s nice, but not everyone wants to be in business for themselves. Not everyone is cut out to be their own boss. Most people would rather work for a living and most do not have the necessary seed money to start a small business.

Another problem is the idea of making a decent living without the prospects of “excessive accumulation”.

It is the nature of human beings…and… morally licit for people to want to improve their position, for their own sake and for their family.

The “profit motive” or desire for “excessive accumulation” is justifiable because a man should to want to improve the position of his family. And this same “profit motive” inadvertently promotes the progress of society as well. There is not necessarily any “selfishness” or “greed” involved.

The innovating entrepreneur who is working to accumulate greater amounts of capital may be living and working entirely out of consideration for others. He may have the intention of saving to provide a better education and an inheritance for his children. Or perhaps he is saving up excessive amounts of capital in order to start some educational institution that will advance the cause of distributism, which he believes will ultimately benefit society.

Under a distributist society with a differential tax, he would not be allowed to do so.

Socialism is a failure because it doesn’t account for original sin. Humans are ALL sinful, not just the rich. Thus, there is nobody virtuous enough to run a socialist government and even if there were, the people aren’t virtuous enough to work hard in spite of no economic incentive.

Socialism fails every time it is tried because it goes against man’s nature to be free.

Distributism respects the free market, but also recognizes its weaknesses. Original sin also works against a virtuous operation of free markets, but via avarice instead of sloth. Distributism is the idea that we can HAVE free markets, but still build structures that innately (i.e. not requiring personal intervention) check the ability of man’s sinfulness to ruin everything.

Any “structure” built to check man’s freedom destroys the Free market.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Always the same buzz phrases. Why? A system in which the very wealthy pay much more of the burden of government services is not “soaking them” it’s simply a method of apportioning the cost of government in which those with plenty must contribute more than those with little. I’m not personally ready for anarchy, thanks.

The “we” are the citizens of the society in which we live. The voters and the taxpayers. We decide how the tax and business regulations should work. Or we used to before only millionaires were eligible to be politicians. We don’t GIVE the incentives to humans. We build systems that recognize the strengths and flaws of human nature that objectively exist. Socialism fails because it doesn’t do that well. Unrestrained robber baron economies is what gave birth to socialism/communism in the first place (reactionaries). To avoid either immoral extreme is the challenge of long term statesmanship and citizenship.

I think I have heard something like this before. Only the writer used the term “proletariat” for the “we” and “Bourgeoisie” for the millionaires/robber barons in his Manifesto.

You are making distributism sound like another form of class warfare.

 

[manualman]

Yeah, There is ZERO middle ground between a system in which 0.05% of the population owns 25% of all the assets of the country and a revolution that involves murdering them. At least not in Zoltan - world. You are the poster-boy for straw man argumentation.

Socialism fails because it’s built on a faulty understanding of human nature. Your Ayn Randian dream world would fail for precisely the same reason. Marx’s ideas gained traction precisely because the laissez faire economics that preceded it HAD created a disastrous oligopoly in which the rich were also the powerful and those who were not had no opportunity. Marx was dead wrong in his proposals, but not so off in his criticisms. Or as GK Chesterton put it: “Reformers are usually right about what is wrong, but are almost always wrong about what is right.”

 

[manualman]

Any “structure” built to check man’s freedom destroys the Free market.

Perhaps, but a structure built to check LICENSE is one of the primary purposes of government. It’s instructive on a catholic forum that you don’t seem to recognize the glaring difference between the words. One of the primary forces in the erosion of our civilization and culture is the conflation of freedom and license. Learn the difference.

 

[dmar198]

ialsop;12447771:

I would LOVE to modify our inefficient government regulated economy to a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire Capitalism

I don’t think you really believe that, because that would seem to exclude any prohibition on any type of buying and selling of any goods or services whatsoever through whatever means you want. Would you prohibit people from offering assassination as a service, even if they offered it purely for economic reasons? If you ban that service, that seems to be at least one market being closing down by the State. Would you enforce contractual obligations between a buyer and a seller? If not, then contracts would mean nothing. If you would enforce contracts, then you’ve let the State into the market, because now the government will have to have standards for what contracts it will recognize as being valid.

with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and Church.

What do you mean by separation of Church and State? It seems to me that our Church says the State has a moral duty to the one true religion and the Catholic Church. Would you have the State neglect its duties? Because that doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Perhaps, but a structure built to check LICENSE is one of the primary purposes of government. It’s instructive on a catholic forum that you don’t seem to recognize the glaring difference between the words. One of the primary forces in the erosion of our civilization and culture is the conflation of freedom and license. Learn the difference.

I am well aware of the two liberties: Freedom and License. That is why I used the word Freedom.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan Cobalt;12449634:

I don’t think you really believe that, because that would seem to exclude any prohibition on any type of buying and selling of any goods or services whatsoever through whatever means you want. Would you prohibit people from offering assassination as a service, even if they offered it purely for economic reasons? If you ban that service, that seems to be at least one market being closing down by the State. Would you enforce contractual obligations between a buyer and a seller? If not, then contracts would mean nothing. If you would enforce contracts, then you’ve let the State into the market, because now the government will have to have standards for what contracts it will recognize as being valid.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect our rights, which means: to protect us from physical violence.

A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent for our self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

There is no reason for government to regulate business beyond existing objective laws.

What do you mean by separation of Church and State? It seems to me that our Church says the State has a moral duty to the one true religion and the Catholic Church. Would you have the State neglect its duties? Because that doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

I agree that our Church says the “State has a moral duty to the one true religion and the Catholic Church.” But our government would not agree to that. If it did, our government would be establishing a State Religion and I think there is an Amendment forbidding that sort of thing.

The state has no business regulating the free exercise of Religion. Likewise the state has no business regulating the Free Market.

 

[Ridgerunner]

dmar198;12449973:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect our rights, which means: to protect us from physical violence.

A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent for our self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

There is no reason for government to regulate business beyond existing objective laws.

I agree that our Church says the “State has a moral duty to the one true religion and the Catholic Church.” But our government would not agree to that. If it did, our government would be establishing a State Religion and I think there is an Amendment forbidding that sort of thing.

The state has no business regulating the free exercise of Religion. Likewise the state has no business regulating the Free Market.

This statement is more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution. Without extending its provisions the least bit by interpretation, it has the power and duty to issue and regulate money, to establish the posts and to regulate interstate commerce, commerce with foreign nations, raise revenues, issue patents, on and on.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan Cobalt;12450293:

This statement is more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution. Without extending its provisions the least bit by interpretation, it has the power and duty to issue and regulate money, to establish the posts and to regulate interstate commerce, commerce with foreign nations, raise revenues, issue patents, on and on.

A very wise Constitutional Law Professor once said that the meaning of worlds change over the years. To really understand the Constitution (for proper interpretation) one must know what words meant in 1786.

For instance the word “welfare” had nothing to do with charity in 1786 as it does today.
Likewise the word “regulate” meant something entirely different than how we use it today.

“A well regulated militia…” meant a well “trained” militia. Soldiers were called “regulars” because they were trained.

When “regulate” was used as to “regulate interstate commerce” it meant to “encourage” or “to maximize”. Today we think it means to minimize and control.

Our Constitution, once understood, provides for a very efficient limited government. The Founders knew what they were doing and “regulating” business (by today’s definition) was not on the agenda.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;12452849:

A very wise Constitutional Law Professor once said that the meaning of worlds change over the years. To really understand the Constitution (for proper interpretation) one must know what words meant in 1786.

For instance the word “welfare” had nothing to do with charity in 1786 as it does today.
Likewise the word “regulate” meant something entirely different than how we use it today.

"A well regulated

militia…" meant a well “trained” militia. Soldiers were called “regulars” because they were trained.

When “regulate” was used as to “regulate interstate commerce” it meant to “encourage” or “to maximize”. Today we think it means to minimize and control.

Our Constitution, once understood, provides for a very efficient limited government. The Founders knew what they were doing and “regulating” business (by today’s definition) was not on the agenda.

Not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, in your parsing, but it seems to me if “regulated” meant “trained”, and if the objective was to “train” the militia “well”, they would no longer be “militia” but “regulars”. “Well-regulated militia”, then, would be a contradiction in terms.

“Encouragement” or “maximizing” would be in the eye of the beholder. So if, say, one state was regularly shipping corn infected with aflatoxin or diseased cattle into another, the intended role of the federal government was to “encourage” it or “maximize” it? Doesn’t make sense that way. “Regulation” in that context has to mean more.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan Cobalt;12452990:

Not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, in your parsing, but it seems to me if “regulated” meant “trained”, and if the objective was to “train” the militia “well”, they would no longer be “militia” but “regulars”. “Well-regulated militia”, then, would be a contradiction in terms.

I thought that way also.

Some militia were probably better trained than the “regulars” but remember, militia fight “at will.” They could be “called up” and placed under orders…but could essentially go home any time they chose.

“Encouragement” or “maximizing” would be in the eye of the beholder. So if, say, one state was regularly shipping corn infected with aflatoxin or diseased cattle into another, the intended role of the federal government was to “encourage” it or “maximize” it? Doesn’t make sense that way. “Regulation” in that context has to mean more.

The idea was to encourage the shipping of corn and cattle and anything else to promote interstate trade and increase prosperity. In those days, the person responsible for shipping infected corn or cattle would be held responsible…not an entire industry as is done today.