Political Philosophy

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283062079' post='2164868']
I submit to John Paul's understanding in [i]Laborem Exercens[/i]
[indent]They cannot be [i]possessed against labour, [/i]they cannot even be [i]possessed for possession's sake,[b] [/b][/i][b]because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership-is [/b][i][b]that they should serve labour,[/b] [/i]and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the [i]socialization, [/i]in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the Encyclical [i]Rerum Novarum, [/i]the Church's teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the [i]Summa Theologiae [/i]of Saint Thomas Aquinas[font="Verdana"][size="2"][sup]22[/sup][/size][/font].

[/indent][font="Arial"][size="2"]or in [i]Centesimus Annus[/i][/size][/font][i] [/i]
[indent]Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, [b]when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others[/b], in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people.87 [b]Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.

[/b][/indent]So I would argue, that the apprentice does not yet own it, but he could become a potential legitimate owner, if the original owner most of the time does not utilize it himself, or when the original owner does not serve labour. In fact John Paul II agrees that shareholding by labour is legitimate.

[i]Laborem Exercens[/i],
[indent]We can speak of socializing only when the subject character of society is ensured, that is to say, [b]when on the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a [i]part-owner[/i] of the great workbench at which he is working with every one else[/b]. A way towards that goal could be found by[b] [i]associating labour with the ownership of capital[/i], as far as possible, and by producing a wide range of intermediate bodies with economic, social and cultural purposes;[/b] they would be bodies enjoying real autonomy with regard to the public powers, pursuing their specific aims in honest collaboration with each other and in subordination to the demands of the common good, and they would be living communities both in form and in substance, in the sense that the members of each body would be looked upon and treated as persons and encouraged to take an active part in the life of the body[font="Verdana"][size="2"][sup]24[/sup][/size][/font].
[/indent]
[/quote]
Well I have a few things to say about this.
First with Centessimus Annus... I would be inclined to argue that a situation really does not exist where a firm's profits "impede the work of others" or doesn't contribute to the wealth of society. As long as the firm isn't literally enslaving threatening and abusing its workers, I see no reason that a normal company operating within commonsense cannot be said to be creating wealth for society. The phrase "illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people" really is a can of worms, because as I alluded to above, there have been cases where the Church sees a situation and, not being necessarily qualified to make economic judgements, makes misleading conclusions based on flawed assumptions. The whole muddled affair of usury is a very good example of that, as are minimum wage laws.
To address Laborem Exercens, I think this falls under what I was speaking about before. I'm not sure where the assumption came from that a worker must own his own means of production. I don't see how it's morally necessary. If a worker is paid market value for his services, he has the opportunity then to choose for himself to purchase his own means of production. Some workers would not want to greater economic hardships associated with owning means of production, such as increased risk, increased responsibility, increased costs, etc.. Specialization has been one of the greatest benefits of the industrial revolution, and Laborem Exercens appears to overlook that.
However, as I said, certainly the opportunity is already open for labourers to become owners. All on which it depends is the choice of the labourers to spend their money in a particular way. Anybody can own nearly anything in a free market, if they have the resources.


[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1283115407' post='2165054']
So who exactly will decide what ownership is and isn't "legitimate"?

And who will enforce the confiscation of property deemed to be "illegitimately" owned, and how?
[/quote]
This is exactly the flaw with Distributism. To enforce it would take state intervention on a massive tyrannic level easily equatable with communism and fascism.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1283120219' post='2165099']
This is exactly the flaw with Distributism. To enforce it would take state intervention on a massive tyrannic level easily equatable with communism and fascism.
[/quote]

I would say that is the flaw with human nature. There's nothing wrong with distributism, if the arrangement/system is freely chosen by the individuals in a society as their valued model of social interaction.

As Socrates rightly points out, anarchism, qua "a completely anarchistic/voluntaryist society" has not existed for very long in any point in history. (Except in monasteries, and for a few hundred years at the Vatican, of course.) I would, however, point out that while anarchism as a whole societal movement has not sustained itself for a long time, neither has a society living by the Golden Rule existed for long. Is the fact that people do not and have not lived according to the Golden Rule mean that we may legitimately choose any other path [i]but [/i]striving to live according to the Golden Rule? The fact that other people refuse to live by the Golden Rule does not excuse me from striving to live according to its tenets. Does anyone expect everyone create utopia by living according to the Golden Rule? Certainly not. But you must realize that we are morally bound to strive to attain that goal, no matter how impossible it is to achieve.

Not to impugn present company, but the following quote by Stephan Kinsella illustates my point: "To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will 'work' (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or 'can' be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians."

~Sternhauser

Edited August 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[un.privileged]

[quote]
Well I have a few things to say about this.
First with Centessimus Annus... I would be inclined to argue that a situation really does not exist where a firm's profits "impede the work of others" or doesn't contribute to the wealth of society.[/quote]
There could be a case when somebody claim ownership over massive amount of crops [i]without homesteading[/i], and he/she prohibit others to use using violence.
As Rothbard said, "Lockean principle that [i]ownership of owned property is to be acquired by "mixing one's labor with the soil"". [/i]

[quote]As long as the firm isn't literally enslaving threatening and abusing its workers, I see no reason that a normal company operating within commonsense cannot be said to be creating wealth for society. The phrase "illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people" really is a can of worms, because as I alluded to above, there have been cases where the Church sees a situation and, not being necessarily qualified to make economic judgements, makes misleading conclusions based on flawed assumptions. The whole muddled affair of usury is a very good example of that, as are minimum wage laws.
[/quote]
There would be less chance of exploitation when the company is a worker co-operative, as all the workers of the company are owners. [i]State [/i]Capitalism is exploitative, and that is the system we currently have right now, in fact, I would argue further that Capitalism never had a "laissez faire" era.

As Kevin Carson said in [url="http://www.mutualist.org/id66.html"]The State and Capitalism in the "Laissez-Faire" era[/url]
[indent][left]Both state socialists and corporate welfare queens, for nearly identical reasons, have a common interest in maintaining the myth of the laissez-faire nineteenth century. The advocates of the regulatory-welfare state must pretend that the injustices of the capitalist economy result from the unbridled market, rather than from state intervention in the market; otherwise, they could not justify their own power as a remedy. The apologists of big business, on the other hand, must pretend that the regulatory-welfare state was something forced on them by anti-business ideologues, rather than something they themselves played a central role in creating; otherwise their worst fears might be realized, and the interventionist state might actually bepruned back. "Laissez-faire" is, therefore, what Albert Jay Nock called it: an "impostor term."[sup]1[/sup] [i]
[/i][indent][i]The horrors of England's industrial life in the last century furnish a standing brief for addicts of positive intervention. Child-labour and woman-labour in the mills and mines; Coketown and Mr. Bounderby; starvation wages; killing hours; vile and hazardous conditions of labour; coffin ships officered by ruffians--all these are glibly charged off by reformers and publicists to a regime of rugged individualism, unrestrained competition, and [u]laissez[/u]-[u]faire[/u]. [b]This is an absurdity on its face, for no such regime ever existed in England. They were due to the State's primary intervention [/b] whereby the population of England was expropriated from the land; due to the State's removal of land from competition with industry for labour....Adam Smith's economics are not the economics of individualism; they are the economics of landowners and mill-owners.[/i][sup]2[/sup]
[/indent][/left][/indent]
[b][font="Arial"][size="2"]Sheldon Richman at FFF: "Capitalism" vs. the Free Market[/size][/font][/b]
[font="Arial"][size="2"][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSvoj76NRLM[/media]

[/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size="2"]Historical Capitalism vs The Free Market [url="http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp"]http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp[/url]
[/size][/font][indent][font="Arial"]Capitalism, therefore, has come to be viewed as compatible with and indeed even requiring activist government: a government that manipulates investment patterns through fiscal policy, regulates production, supervises competition through licensing and antitrust laws, stimulates exports by use of subsidies, and controls the purchase of imports with tariffs and quotas. The interventionist state, in the evolution of historical capitalism, has come to be considered the prerequisite for the maintenance of the market economy. [/font]
[/indent][font="Arial"][size="2"]Those are austro-libertarian perspective btw, since we both like Austrian economics.

[quote]To address Laborem Exercens, I think this falls under what I was speaking about before. I'm not sure where the assumption came from that a worker must own his own means of production. I don't see how it's morally necessary. If a worker is paid market value for his services, he has the opportunity then to choose for himself to purchase his own means of production. Some workers would not want to greater economic hardships associated with owning means of production, such as increased risk, increased responsibility, increased costs, etc.. Specialization has been one of the greatest benefits of the industrial revolution, and Laborem Exercens appears to overlook that.[/quote]
Unless, specialization in the "industrial revolution", was a result of State intervention.

[quote]However, as I said, certainly the opportunity is already open for labourers to become owners. All on which it depends is the choice of the labourers to spend their money in a particular way. Anybody can own nearly anything in a free market, if they have the resources.[/quote]
[/size][/font]I agree in this, but not only by spending money. It is legit to become owners by homesteading. Even Rothbard proposed this.

[quote]This is exactly the flaw with Distributism. To enforce it would take state intervention on a massive tyrannic level easily equatable with communism and fascism. [/quote]
It does not require enforcement when for example 70% of the society prefers running cooperatives. As a Libertarian Socialists (Mutualists) and Distributists, I prefer associating with others rather than hiring. You just need to abolish State privileges, let us Distributists and Mutualists, compete both freely and fairly. I won't point a gun at you if you prefer hiring rather than associating.

As Pope John Paul II said in Laborem Exercens, I would [b][i]"associate labour with the ownership of capital[/i], as far as possible, and by producing a wide range of intermediate bodies with economic, social and cultural purposes" [/b]using peaceful action. I would even offer the person you hire to become a part-owner. Mutualists and Distributists would emphasize more on how to run your own business instead of how to use State intervention to regulate other firms.

Under the current system of State Corporate Capitalism (or call it "Corporatism" if you wish), it is almost impossible even to compete freely, as huge Capitalist firms (especially big banks) massively benefits from State intervention, and small business suffers the most, and the workers bargaining power in a contract are consistently being undermined through violence (privatizing profit to investors, socializing cost to the majority which are the workers).

Edited August 30, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

[quote]Not to impugn present company, but the following quote by Stephan Kinsella illustates my point: "To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will 'work' (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or 'can' be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians."[/quote]
I agree with Kinsella in this point.

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1283113974' post='2165050']
I didn't find it clear at all what he was advocating (nor what you're advocating, in practical terms). Too many semantics and labels, not enough practical explanation of what any of it means, or how "libertarian socialism" is supposed to be implemented in practical terms.


I have no clue what you mean by "absolutizing" the role of private property.[/quote]
Just by owning something through buying doesn't mean you have the absolute right to posses it without serving labour.
[indent] because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is [i]that they should serve labour, [/i]and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the [i]socialization, [/i]in suitable conditions, of certain means of production.


[/indent] Owning large amount lands without utilizing it (homesteading) is unjustified.
[indent]Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, [b]when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others[/b], in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people.87 [b]Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.[/b]
[/indent]

Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church
[indent][b]177. [/b][i]Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable[/i]: "On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone"[372]. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. [i]Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods[/i];[i] in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[/i][375]. [b] 178. [/b][i]The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership[/i] [376] that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good[377]. Man "should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others"[378]. [i]The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners[/i]. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will have, rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but also the common good. From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production.

[/indent]
[b]

[/b][indent][b]181. [/b][i]To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise ownership of various types of property accrue a series of objective advantages[/i]: better living conditions, security for the future, and a greater number of options from which to choose. [i]On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation[/i]. T[b]hose people and societies that go so far as to absolutize the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery[/b]. In fact, there is no category of possession that can be considered indifferent with regard to the influence that it may have both on individuals and on institutions. Owners who heedlessly idolize their goods (cf.[i] Mt[/i] 6:24, 19:21-26; [i]Lk[/i] 16:13) become owned and enslaved by them[383]. Only by recognizing that these goods are dependent on God the Creator and then directing their use to the common good, is it possible to give material goods their proper function as useful tools for the growth of individuals and peoples.
[/indent]
[quote]I hardly think our problems today are caused by a surplus of private property rights.
[/quote]
Limited Liability in tort (BP spill?), Corporate personhood, are things I would call a surplus of private property rights. It is a rigid protection of private property rights. It is a massive problem.

[b]
[/b]

Edited August 30, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

[quote]So who exactly will decide what ownership is and isn't "legitimate"?[/quote]
The market will (private defense agencies/voluntary defense associations). The demands to property protection in the market will vary from communities to communities. Mutualist PDA will compete with anarcho-capitalist style PDA, so some would have an anarcho-capitalist style property protection, some would have a mutualist/distributist style property protection (being cheaper of course).

[quote]And who will enforce the confiscation of property deemed to be "illegitimately" owned, and how[/quote]
Under a mutualist or distributist society, there would be nothing to confiscate. The claim to the idled or un-utilized property will simply be ignored, and no longer will be protected by the community, or mutualists PDA, if you will. As it is no longer owned, it just need to be re-homesteaded.

As distributists,It is the duty for the owners to not let the goods in their possession go idle.
[indent] From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, [i]even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production[/i].
([i]Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church[/i])

[/indent]Under a mutualist/distributist society, most of the owners would be workers (and vice versa) so it would be less likely for the owners to let their own means of production go idle. Under our current State Capitalist system, Capitalist firms and big banks benefits most from the State (and I might add a monopoly of defense agency), so there are very limited competition.

Edited August 30, 2010 by un.privileged

[un.privileged]

I found a wonderful list of Distributist principles. [url="http://www.justpeace.org/encourdistributism.htm"]http://www.justpeace...istributism.htm[/url]
There only a couple point that I disagree, but I agree in most stuff.

1. Join or start a neighborhood association.
2. Bank with a credit union.
3. Patronize locally owned stores, microenterprises, co-operatives, and worker owned businesses.
4. Grow some of your own food.
5. Eat with the season.
6. Patronize a farmers' market, or purchase food directly from farmers/producers.
7. Form or join a housing cooperative.
8. Build a meeting hall.
9. Support local currencies.
10. Avoid corporation-debt (borrow from credit unions).
11. Home school.
12. Support a community garden.
13. Avoid commodified entertainment in favor of personalist entertainment such as local baseball, picnics, dances, social events, quilting bees, fairs, etc.
14. Support live music by listening and by making your own music.
15. Create your own job, or join with others to create a cooperative or worker owned business.
16. Organize an employee association at your work.
17. Start moving towards alternative, non-centrally generated power.
18. Write letters to the editors of secular and religious publications.
19. Write letters to politicians.
20. Volunteer at a homeless shelter.
21. Live in a Catholic Worker house. (Or start one.)
22. Invite a poor family to move in with you.
23. Reuse, recycle, reduce. Waste not, want not.
24. Spend your money wisely, prudently, and intentionally.
25. Adopt children.
26. Sponsor children and the elderly in the overseas missions.
27. Give food to a food bank or St. Vincent de Paul circle, or other program that feeds the poor.
28. Donate generously and sacrificially to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and Operation Rice Bowl of Catholic Relief Services.
29. Shop at flea markets, swap meets, and garage sales.
30. Join a food co-op.
31.Keep extra food on hand (typically, 2-4 months, this supports frugal shopping and household management)
32. Read the newspaper intentionally -- with open eyes, ears, spirit, mind.
33. Start a justice and peace commission at your church, or join an existing one.
34. Visit those in prison and their families.
34. Plant trees.
35. Talk about distributism, justice, and peace (a lot).
36. Learn about justice and peace. Study and pray over (lectio divina) the "social justice canon"of magisterial teachings.
37. Get involved with a mentoring program such as Big Brothers/Sisters, or an after school tutoring program (or start one).
38. Teach people to read.
39. Register voters.
40. Teach English as a second language.
41. Pick up trash in public places and dispose of it properly.
42. Kill your TV, or at least, grievously wound it (apologies for the violent language). If you have a TV, don't watch it -- study it.
43. Teach logic and rhetoric and also (while you're at it) learn how to understand, interpret, and mediate modern mass communications, especially the nature and identification and purpose of propaganda, and then tell everyone everywhere what you have learned and how you learned it.
44. Ignore most advertising, or watch it "intentionally" for what it tells us about our communities. Teach your children to ignore most advertising. Encourage them to teach their friends to ignore most advertising.
45. Practice the theological virtues (faith, hope, love), the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance), and the [url="http://www.justpeace.org/virtue.htm"]civic virtues[/url] (self-discipline, respect, cooperation, responsibility, honesty, motivation, friendship, courage, non-violence, work) so you eventually will get good at them. (Practice makes perfect. If you can't do perfect, do good. Then do better.)
46. Volunteer at a school, library, hospital, or agency/apostolate in service to the poor.
47. Tithe your time and your money (generously and sacrificially).
48. Give somebody without a car a ride.
49. Start a transportation co-operative (ride sharing, car pooling, kid picking up/delivering, etc.)
50. Avoid sweatshop clothing and products.
51. Pray the Rosary for economic justice and social peace and harmony.
52. Go to mass regularly and devoutly participate, receiving the Body and Blood of our Savior as spiritual sustenance, hearing the Real Presence of Christ in the proclamation of the Word, and fellow shipping with the Real Presence of Christ in the assembly gathered in that place.
53. Become a catechist of economic justice (distributism) and social peace and harmony.
54. Pray and publicly witness for life, beauty, and human dignity; offer practical and safe alternatives to those who feel they have no choice but to violate human life and dignity. Speak for those who have no voice or power. Respect life from the moment of conception to the time of natural death.
55. Distribute literature and information about economic justice and social peace and harmony.
56. Pray with lectio divina over the Holy Scriptures relating to justice and peace.
57. Practice kindness everywhere.
58. Make your own bread and teach others how to do this. Build an outdoor bread oven as a community project.
59. Move to a poor or working class neighborhood.
60. Give books to a library.
61. Donate stuff to thrift stores.
62. Make intelligent use of pre-evangelistic techniques and materials, i.e. advertising, bumper stickers, tracts, prayer cards, greeting cards, stickers, etc.)
63. Make friends with poor people; be a good neighbor to them.
64. Adopt voluntary poverty as a lifestyle. Seek a certain indifference about material things and a humble gratefulness for the bounty of Creation.
65. Help students apply for college/job training and help them navigate the financial aid process.
66. Help students with their homework. Provide educational opportunities.
67. Give fish as necessary, but also teach fishing. Help provide fishing gear and tackle, and build fish ponds.
68. Give a pregnant unmarried mother a home in your own home. Treat her as though she was your own daughter.
69. Avoid economic reductionism.
71. Support affordable housing: oppose redevelopment and tax increment financing schemes, support Single Room Occupancy hotels, enact affordable housing building codes that allow for alternative (and less expensive) construction methods such as straw bale, rammed earth, COB, oppose fake privatization schemes that benefit corporate interests and destroy housing for the poor
72. Produce a public access cable show or a video on economic justice and peace.
73. Give away cassette tapes on economic justice and social peace issues.
74. Don't give your kids toy guns.
75. Learn, practice, and teach non-violent conflict resolution alternatives.
76. Start a Catholic social justice publication, e-zine, list-serv, webzine, or website.
77. Tear up your credit and debit cards.
78. Learn to sew and teach others.
79. Practice a regular discipline of fasting and abstinence.
80. Teach people how to cook tasty, frugal, and nutritious meals. Prepare such food for your family and share it with others.
81. Be prepared for emergencies.
82. Avoid the television news except during emergencies.
83. Eat with your neighbors, regularly. Pot luck dinners provide immediate instant gratification for practicing distributism.
84. Compost.
85. Don't waste energy.
86. Support ballot access for minor parties.
87. Take in stray cats and dogs.
88. Join an intentional distributist community. (Or start one.)
89. Encourage your catechists, priests, and bishops to provide proper formation in social justice.
90. Create yard and neighborhood shrines.
91. Speak at government meetings.
92. Listen to and learn from elders. If you are an elder, share your wisdom and experience.
93. Call in to talk radio programs and discuss issues from the perspective of justice and peace.
94. Smile at people you meet and leave them with a blessing of peace.
95. Drive kindly.
96. Oppose corporate welfare.
97. Support debt forgiveness for poor countries.
98. Welcome legal and illegal immigrants with hospitality.
99. Include global concerns in your participation in justice and peace.
100. Help the Church be just in its actions and relationships, and to make its resources available to support distributive initiatives. E.g., encourage parishes and dioceses to purchase from microenterprises, to make church buildings available for food banks and shelters, and church properties available for community gardens. Encourage composting at all church properties. Advocate that dioceses and parishes make capital investments in distributism, such as building community canning kitchens.
101. Breast feed your babies.
102. Use cloth diapers

[Winchester]

And then a feudalist will show up, beat the croutons out of the hippies and there will be government, again.

Then someone will get mad that he's not an aristocrat. He will be a little eloquent. Some disenchanted aristocrats will become followers and establish a "democracy." After a few election cycles, the former aristocrats (who had some standards and training and sense of duty), will be entirely replaced by nitwits who just like the sound of banging gavels and Robert's Rules of Order.



But before the collapse of the "free" society, there will be small groups that will use the philosophy to expropriate land from those who don't possess it legitimately. They will use rhetoric and later violence. They will gain power. People will ally themselves with this person, and his claims will gain more power.

What's that quote about "omnipotent moral busybodies?"

[un.privileged]

A feudalist turning in a free society is as likely a dude like Hitler rising up as a totalitarian dictator any time in the future.
Or probably even worse than Hitler, the totalitarian dictator might be Buddhist.


[b][url="http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/05/18/the-totalitarian-buddhist-who-beat-sim-city/"]The Totalitarian Buddhist Who Beat Sim City[/url][/b]
http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/05/18/the-totalitarian-buddhist-who-beat-sim-city/

[Winchester]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283175079' post='2165348']
A feudalist turning in a free society is as likely a dude like Hitler rising up as a totalitarian dictator any time in the future.
Or probably even worse than Hitler, the totalitarian dictator might be Buddhist.
[/quote]
You got it completely backwards. Your free society (in which people undeserving of their property will be divested of it) will become a feudal state.

And we are one vote away from losing the right to self defense. And we have absolutely no control over who gets in the position to tell us that. So yeah, totalitarian dictatorships are quite likely. They're in effect in the UK, already. And Australia. Europe is closing in, in general. And with Dear Leader at the helm, we're bringing up the rear. Leftists are totalitarians.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

RE: distributism.......... why is local industry preferable to 'big business'?

[Socrates]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283134946' post='2165213']
Just by owning something through buying doesn't mean you have the absolute right to posses it without serving labour.
[indent] because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is [i]that they should serve labour, [/i]and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the [i]socialization, [/i]in suitable conditions, of certain means of production.


[/indent] Owning large amount lands without utilizing it (homesteading) is unjustified.
[indent]Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, [b]when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others[/b], in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working people.87 [b]Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man.[/b]
[/indent][/quote]
The best means of effectively distributing property is a free market, which consists of people freely buying and selling property at a price which is a free and willing agreement between buyer and seller.

Anything other than that involves outside coercion (whether from the state, or some other powerful body by any other name), and is contrary to a free society.

The Pope was saying that private property rights cannot be used as an excuse to screw over workers, or use them as chattel or virtual slave labor.

However, in a free society, no one has the right to force a man to give up his lawfully-obtained property if others declare that it does not properly "serve labor" or is not properly "utilized."
These concepts are in reality quite vague and subjective, and the free market itself in reality does the best job of seeing that land or other private property is "well utilized."
Who defines what constitutes too large an area of land, or whether or not it is being well-utilized, or "serving labor"?

If someone owns some land which he is not using, and is not of any use or value to him, the market generally solves the problem. If the owner is not gainfully utilizing the land, there is usually someone else who will be willing to pay him a good price to buy the land and utilize it for either agricultural, industrial, commercial, or residential purposes. Buyer and seller reach a free mutual agreement in which the buyer offers the seller more to buy the "un-utilized" land than it was worth to the seller.
But the sale should be a free agreement. The land owner should not be forced by a third party to sell or give away his "surplus" land. If he wishes to keep the land, and not sell it for any reason, he should be free to do so. Perhaps he wants to use it as a nature preserve, or a park, or preserve scenic or historic countryside from ugly over-development. If so, his choice should be respected. It's not the place of some third party (whether "the state "or some kind of anarchist "collective") to force him to hand it over for proper "utilization."

Most people are quite happy to sell unused land for a good price. Socialistic redistribution of private property for the "service of labor" is unjust and unnecessary.

[quote]Compendium of the Social doctrine of the Church
[indent][b]177. [/b][i]Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable[/i]: "On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone"[372]. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. [i]Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods[/i];[i] in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[/i][375]. [b] 178. [/b][i]The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership[/i] [376] that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good[377]. Man "should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others"[378]. [i]The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners[/i]. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will have, rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but also the common good. From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production.

[/indent]
[/quote]
I would argue that the "universal destination of goods" is most effectively served by a free market, rather than by socialistic redistribution, which has been condemned by the Church.

And I consider anything other than a free and willing agreement between buyer and seller to be contrary to a free market, regardless of what linguistic gymnastics you might use to say otherwise.

[quote][b][/b][indent][b]181. [/b][i]To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise ownership of various types of property accrue a series of objective advantages[/i]: better living conditions, security for the future, and a greater number of options from which to choose. [i]On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation[/i]. T[b]hose people and societies that go so far as to absolutize the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery[/b]. In fact, there is no category of possession that can be considered indifferent with regard to the influence that it may have both on individuals and on institutions. Owners who heedlessly idolize their goods (cf.[i] Mt[/i] 6:24, 19:21-26; [i]Lk[/i] 16:13) become owned and enslaved by them[383]. Only by recognizing that these goods are dependent on God the Creator and then directing their use to the common good, is it possible to give material goods their proper function as useful tools for the growth of individuals and peoples.
[/indent]

Limited Liability in tort (BP spill?), Corporate personhood, are things I would call a surplus of private property rights. It is a rigid protection of private property rights. It is a massive problem.

[b]
[/b][/quote]
When in doubt, bring up the BP oil spill to condemn "capitalism" in general. Obviously, the oil spill would never had been a problem, had the oil rig only been under some socialist/anarchist/what-have-you system of ownership. Limiting private property rights would've cleaned it right up!

Edited August 30, 2010 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='un.privileged' timestamp='1283160649' post='2165320']
The market will (private defense agencies/voluntary defense associations). The demands to property protection in the market will vary from communities to communities. Mutualist PDA will compete with anarcho-capitalist style PDA, so some would have an anarcho-capitalist style property protection, some would have a mutualist/distributist style property protection (being cheaper of course). [/quote]
A free market consists of freely-made transactions between a willing buyer and a willing seller at a mutually agreed-upon price.

Any forceful coercion by a third party (whether you want to call it a "state" or a "private defense agency/voluntary defense association" or whatever) is socialism, and is directly opposed to a free society.

Declaring your enforcing body a "private" or "voluntary" agency does not make it any less tyrannical.

"Private defense agencies/voluntary defense associations" (backed up by AK-47s?) declaring whether or not private property is being properly "utilized" to "serve labor," and whether the owner has a right to keep it does not constitute a "free market," by any stretch of the imagination, no matter what you choose to call it.

Communism by any other name is still communism.


[quote]Under a mutualist or distributist society, there would be nothing to confiscate. The claim to the idled or un-utilized property will simply be ignored, and no longer will be protected by the community, or mutualists PDA, if you will. As it is no longer owned, it just need to be re-homesteaded.
[/quote]
No, of course nothing will ever need to be confiscated by the good "PDA"s in the Worker's Paradise.
Unless of course, the wicked capitalist landowner stubbornly refuses to let his land be "redistributed" for the "service of labor."

Then Dear Leader (oops, I meant "the Community") and his trusty PDAs will be forced to step in and make things right.

[quote]As distributists,It is the duty for the owners to not let the goods in their possession go idle.
[indent] From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, [i]even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production[/i].
([i]Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church[/i])

[/indent]Under a mutualist/distributist society, most of the owners would be workers (and vice versa) so it would be less likely for the owners to let their own means of production go idle. Under our current State Capitalist system, Capitalist firms and big banks benefits most from the State (and I might add a monopoly of defense agency), so there are very limited competition.
[/quote]
In a free market, as I've pointed out, there's not much incentive to let land and resources go idle, anyway. No busybody socialistic redistribution schemes are needed.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Socrates

[Winchester]

But goofy government taxation does encourage letting old property sit idle and rot.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1283201700' post='2165577']
But goofy government taxation does encourage letting old property sit idle and rot.
[/quote]

Not to mention the fact that the Federal State "owns" 50% of the land West of the Mississippi. It's not accomplishing much.

~Sternhauser