Socrates Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Nov 11 2004, 06:51 PM'] Rerum Novarum shoots both Socialism and Capitalism and so does Quadrisegima Anno. I'm more of a distributist, but as thats usually not a political choice (and no, George Bush isn't distributive, he's Capitalist) so I'd be more inclined to vote Socialist. [/quote] Socialism fails, both in economic practice and as a just system. The Church teaches that people have a right to private property. It is not the place of government to distibute people's private property. Socialism has failed around the world. Look at the disaster of Communism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Bush is more of a distributist than Kerry at least he wants to create ownership and take out the IRS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 How would you regulate and maintain such a system.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 [quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Nov 11 2004, 09:26 AM'] I voted for distributism because that is the best possible system post-Industrial Revolution. Industrialization was the biggest disaster in human history, economically speaking. It also has caused irreprobale social consequences; it is truly a very sad thing. I know that the Society of Saint John (before the scandal) was looking to buy some land in the country somewhere and to live there with Traditional Catholics (or any Catholic, but it would be Traditional Latin Mass). I wish I could've done that, but they never went through with it because of the problems in that Order. In any event, I think there is still another group of people seeking to set up a similar thing. Imagine The Village, but Catholic and it would be openly honest about society. [/quote] Materially people in industrialized countries are better off than ever before. (Of course, material goods are not everything!) I think Distributism has a better case morally/socially that it does as an economic argument (e.g. - the idea that people are materially poorer now than the middle ages). Most of us pampered moderns (including those of "distributist" persuasion) would find it difficult to live in pre-modern times (when most people did not live to age 30 and many faced famine and plague!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 [quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 11 2004, 10:25 PM'] How would you regulate and maintain such a system.? [/quote] That's the main problem with it. I don't think it would work in practice. A hardcore distributist friend of mine accused me of "pragmatism" when I brought up issues of how this would be enforced. He said such issues were not important. Distributists tend to be very idealistic head-in-the-clouds, impractical people who dislike discussing nuts-and-bolts of economics and government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I agree.. honestly this whole theory sounds a bit..mideavil, i like capitalism... capitalism with big middle class promotes Democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 My best friend calls me an idealist with the heart of a pragmatist... ithought is was funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Or a pragmatist with the heart of an idealist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 But Seriously... have you guys ever studied the populist movment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 [quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 11 2004, 08:40 PM'] The idea that morality is wrong is not intrinsically part of capitalism. That is a moral theory. Capitalism is an economic system (I think I mean the same thing as you mean by "free market economy"). Moral and immoral things can be done in a capitalist system, as in any other system, but a capitalist system does not necessitate immorality. [/quote] The problem with capitalism is that the morality becomes, "private vices become public virtues," or the bad things for a person becomes good for the economy (people seeking to be rich belongs to a vice, but really helps the economy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 WeI don't think that capitalism is bad in itself though, for someone completely bereft of morality it can become a power trip. But then that is the problem of most economic systems. I mean look at communism, looks good on paper right? But take into consideration those few people who are out for themselves and it doesn;'t work. At least with capitalism you don't necessarily have to rely on absolutly everyone to be virtuous for it to work properly. I know it sounds bad to say this but capitalism is the lesser of many evils, and if we have a strong church and strong morality to temper the people who practice it, it can be a very good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Yes! Distributism! What a compromise, free markets but with checks and balances to ensure that no one company aquires undue leverage over the rest. Focus on small business and local economies, private property (true private property) and self-sustenance. Capitalism means ultimately one person owns everything (corporation) Communism means one person owns everything (state) Distributism says everyone (as much as possible) owns something. Bring back the Guild! Limit and control adverttisement, or tax based on size and spread. Penalize large companies or owners if they are trying to buy smaller ones, and advantage the small owners. Man I miss the medieval economy (well... I guess I wasn't there... but still...) The Catholic way: self-production, owning the land or means of economically providing for your family. The reformation destroyed economics, among other things, and usury is rampant in our society, leading to greed and poverty of millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 PS read Hillaire Belloc's (great British Catholic statesman and Historian)book [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895554623/ref=ase_poemhunter-20/102-7495074-1029722?v=glance&s=books"]The Crisis of Civilization[/url] It's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oik Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Distributism about a lesser but stronger govenment that is less involved with the decisions people make, but setting up an economic environment thatstimulates moral economy, decided on a local level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Essentially yes. Local economy, small producers, private property, morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now