Distributism

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Budge' post='1074092' date='Sep 24 2006, 07:26 PM']
Show me some links.

Seriously.

I want to see some distributism articles directly preaching against the UN and globalism.
[/quote]

Here's a novel idea. YOU do some research, and prove YOUR side of the argument. I've not seen you do that yet. But since you've requested some links about Distributism, I'll help you get started on YOUR research. Then, report back with your findings.

[quote]According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the populace, rather than being centralized under the control of a few state bureaucrats (some forms of socialism) or a minority of resource-commanding individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists" ("The Uses of Diversity", 1921).[/quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism[/url]

What is Distributism?

[quote]Distributism is an economic system in which private property, (especially the 'means of production'), is well distributed, in which as many people as possible are actual owners.[/quote][url="http://www.distributism.com/"]http://www.distributism.com/[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1074092' date='Sep 24 2006, 06:26 PM']
Show me some links.

Seriously.

I want to see some distributism articles directly preaching against the UN and globalism.
[/quote]
Maybe I ca find some when I get more time, but I've gotten most of my information on distributism from live people and books, rather than websites.

But first, I'd challenge you to link to articles by distributists directly preaching [b]for[/b] the UN and globalism.
After all, you were the one who made this charge. Do you have anything solid to back it up?

[Era Might]

Thanks for the Wikipedia link.

I'm not sure I understand the concept, though. The purpose is to basically have all people own their own means of making a living, correct? But most people don't do work that requires owning anything. If you're a janitor, for example, you have to go work for someone else who owns their own business, and clean for them. In what sense would you own your means of labor?

To use my personal example, I fix computers for a living. I have to work for companies who need IT work. Theoretically, I could have my own PC repair business, but I wouldn't want to. If everyone had their own PC repair business, it would be kind of useless, since there would barely be any business to go around.

Am I missing something?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1074116' date='Sep 24 2006, 07:44 PM']
Thanks for the Wikipedia link.

I'm not sure I understand the concept, though. The purpose is to basically have all people own their own means of making a living, correct? But most people don't do work that requires owning anything. If you're a janitor, for example, you have to go work for someone else who owns their own business, and clean for them. In what sense would you own your means of labor?

To use my personal example, I fix computers for a living. I have to work for companies who need IT work. Theoretically, I could have my own PC repair business, but I wouldn't want to. If everyone had their own PC repair business, it would be kind of useless, since there would barely be any business to go around.

Am I missing something?
[/quote]
Check out this link: [url="http://www.distributism.com/whatisit.htm"]http://www.distributism.com/whatisit.htm[/url]

[Budge]

I added some quotes in the post above....

This is what I said AGAIN...

[quote]
Distributism would require governmental intrustion into business and MASSIVE REDISTRIBUTION of property and wealth.

Sounds like a bunch of Catholics who want to return the world to the some false romantic ideal they have of the Medieval rural economy.

I dont see it as anti-globalist, the globalists would love the world to all be living as peasants.[/quote]

But lets begin with this question...

How is distributism different from Clinton's THIRD WAY PROPOSALS?

[url="http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895"]CLINTON AND THIRD WAY[/url]



[quote]The property will be so intimately connected with a man and his family that he will have a fiercely protective attitude toward it and resist attack. [/quote]

Sounds like a BACK TO THE FARM movement with a slight [b]LETS GO BACK BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION[/b] message.

Ive read too many books on Mao, and Stalin I think, Im cringing because I remember reading about how Mao, oppressed and killed all the intellectuals "Wage Slaves" as this site would call them, and non-farmers and took everyone on a back to the farm movement, the only difference between here, is they were collectively owned.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Budge' post='1074118' date='Sep 24 2006, 07:49 PM']
I added some quotes in the post above....

This is what I said AGAIN...
But lets begin with this question...

How is distributism different from Clinton's THIRD WAY PROPOSALS?

[url="http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895"]CLINTON AND THIRD WAY[/url]
Sounds like a BACK TO THE FARM movement with a slight [b]LETS GO BACK BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION[/b] message.

Ive read too many books on Mao, and Stalin I think, Im cringing because I remember reading about how Mao, oppressed and killed all the intellectuals "Wage Slaves" as this site would call them, and non-farmers and took everyone on a back to the farm movement, the only difference between here, is they were collectively owned.
[/quote]
It might help if you read your own links.
[quote]The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education [b]rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. [/b][/quote]
In other words, it's not a redistribution of wealth.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1074092' date='Sep 24 2006, 06:26 PM']
I am not an economist.

You do know what THIRD WAY debate has been about havent you?

[url="http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895"]THIRD WAY-MARRIAGE OF CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM[/url]
Quote by Chesterton..
The last line I underlined is VERY INTERESTING.

[url="http://www.smart.net/~tak/Chesterton/conver5.html"]GK CHESTERTON[/url]

When people start talking about redistribution of wealth...which I would surmise would be FORCED...

That has at least the tinge of COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM.

So far I havent been able to find an anti-globalist distributist article, can you provide one?
[/quote]
Hve you even read the whole of those articles you linked to?
Chesterton used to be a socialist, before rejecting socialism. He had rejected it when he wrote these articles.
This is like saying Budge promotes Catholicism because Budge said she used to be Catholic! (I suppose everything you write should now be dismissed as Romish propaganda.)

Chesterton then rejects socialism (from your own quote):
[quote][b]most of us began to realise that Socialism was not inevitable; that it was not really popular; that it was not the only way, or even the right way, of restoring the rights of the poor.[/b] We have come to the conclusion that the obvious cure for private property being given to the few is to see that it is given to the many; [b][i]not[/i] to see that it is taken away from everybody or given in trust to the dear good politicians[/b].[/quote]
Chesterton says statist socialism is wrong! It is NOT the right way! property should NOT be put in the trust of politicians!


Talk about reading comprehension problem!

Edited September 24, 2006 by Socrates

[Era Might]

[quote]In capitalism, while theoretically any man may own the means of production (or the raw resource), only men of exceptional talent and/or opportunity ever have a chance at this. Most men will look for employment among the increasingly fewer owners, selling the only commodity they have to offer the market: their labor.

A 'Wage-Slave' is someone who is hopelessly dispossessed of both raw resources and means of production, whose only value they have to bring to the market is their labor.[/quote]
This is a good point, and sounds generally true, but I think it may be necessary. I guess I would consider myself a "wage slave", in the sense that I work where I'm able; I'm not in a position to dictate where I work and what I make. But, that works out, because companies need people to do the work.

I think in the abuse of capitalism, the great danger is that everyone does really become a "slave", a cog in a machine. But, if the employer treats the employee with dignity, even if their work is done out of necessity for a paycheck, then the exchange is just. Pope Leo XIII makes this point in "Rerum Novarum", that there has to be different classes, of owners and laborers, but as long as this does not become a system of abuse, there's nothing about it that disrespects the dignity of man.

I guess in theory it would be nice if we could control our own means of labor, but for the life of an average citizen, I think that's unrealistic. It works that labor is needed for companies, and they are able to fill that role. Unfortunately, this too often leads to abuse. There's dignity in menial work, but the employer should respect the fact that it is menial, and try not to exacerbate the situation if possible. But the menial work still has to get done. Someone has to clean the toilets.

[Socrates]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1074122' date='Sep 24 2006, 06:51 PM']
It might help if you read your own links.

In other words, it's not a redistribution of wealth.
[/quote]
Clinton's "third way" has nothing to do with distributism, so this is really irrelevent. I've never known a distributist who supported Clinton (nor the UN, for that matter).

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1074127' date='Sep 24 2006, 07:56 PM']
Clinton's "third way" has nothing to do with distributism, so this is really irrelevent. I've never known a distributist who supported Clinton (nor the UN, for that matter).
[/quote]
Yeah, I just thought it was funny that their own link stated that this was not about redistribution of wealth. :

[Budge]

[quote] We have come to the conclusion that the obvious cure for private property being given to the few is to see that it is given to the many; not to see that it is taken away from everybody or given in trust to the dear good politicians.[/quote]

Whose going to be doing all the giving of the private property?

The BIG HOLE in distributism.

[Aloysius]

it has to be applied indirectly on some end from increasing entrepreneurship by private individuals, the private instituting of guilds, and on the other end from government laws which do not break the seventh commandment and take-redistribute wealth but encourage and support the rise of small businesses and the ownership-fragmenting of big businesses (the unity of the nationwide or worldwide big business could be preserved with the founding of a guild among all the new private owners of each local branch of that business)

distributism is not about some body or entity taking and redistributing the wealth and property... it's about organically developing small businesses easy to own by local people in local places, abolishing property taxes and creating a housing market where homes can be easily owned fully and outright, et cetera. from the government end things like abolishing property taxes (there are other more just forms of taxing which can pay for public schools if our society continues to really insist those as necessary) and requiring that all local businesses be made available to be purchased and owned by local people (if there is a pizza hutt, the law would say they must be willing to sell to any local person who made a reasonable offer... et cetera et cetera)

it would have to be done in small increments at all points being sure to prevent the breaching of the seventh commandment by the government or any other entity while allowing the society to slowly transform into a true "ownership society" where most everyone truly owns their own home and a great number of people privately and locally own businesses (and perhaps have global influence within a guild for that business)...

[Counter-Reformer]

There is another Third way that I think is better than conservative and private distributive economy. I'm surpised nobody has brought up Social Credit. The Social Credit system thought up by C.H. Douglas makes far more sense than either left-wing Socialism or Communism and more sense (And Fair) than Lazaizz-faire Capitalism.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit[/url]

Edited September 25, 2006 by Counter-Reformer

[goldenchild17]

I am actually pretty new to distributism so I can't say that I know all about it. But aside from the actual economic point of things, it seems that distributism could bring back actual quality to products. It seems, and this isn't anything more than an observation, that with capitalism everything is becoming of lower and lower quality. With the rush to provide cheaper and cheaper products (price-wise) they are likewise providing cheaper and cheaper (quality-wise) products as well.

[Aloysius]

[quote]There is another Third way that I think is better than conservative and private distributive economy. I'm surpised nobody has brought up Social Credit. The Social Credit system thought up by C.H. Douglas makes far more sense than either left-wing Socialism or Communism and more sense (And Fair) than Lazaizz-faire Capitalism.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit[/url]
[/quote]
I don't like it.... I don't like it one bit.

first problem I have with it:
[quote]For a "National Dividend" to give a basic guaranteed income to all regardless of whether or not they have a job.[/quote]

scripture says "he who does not work, neither let him eat". no one would need a job in this scenario... and it is generally observed in human nature and cannot be faulted that if one does not need a job, one doesn't get a job. if I lived in such a society... I would spend all my time doing whatever the heck I wanted because me and my (future) wife would be receiving social credits automatically for no work! yay...er... no not a good idea because someone has to do the work.

second problem: it's big government. it violates the social justice principle of subsidarity, that whatever can be accomplished at the lowest possible level ought to be accomplished at the lowest possible level. I suppose if it was instituted in some sort of city state it might not be as bad (but most anything wouldn't be as bad if it were just instituted by a city state, in my humble opinion, because small government tends to make things slightly better no matter what they are)

third problem: the same problem I have with the federal reserve and all that nonsense: money becomes no longer real and its value gets to be determined by an elite group behind closed doors making shady deals in back rooms with cigar smoke.... you know? money as nothing but "credit" doesn't really fly with me; it ought to represent something real and substantial and be tied down to reality.

fourth problem: if you don't work for it, you don't own it. plain and simple. if the government gives you credits, then they are ultimately the government's credits. if you use the government's credits to buy your house, then it's the government's house. sure, in theory it's your house... but a government is going to want to know what's going on with the money it's issuing... it won't go to extremes but there will inevitably be limitations placed on your land... emminent domain would be a very powerful force if your land was bought on nothing but government credits (they'll just give you a refund of your credits... "thanks for leasing this land but we'd like it back now", here's the deposit you placed on it to reserve your spot on our wonderful land)

there's many other problems I have with it... I know there are many who will argue against it practically like they argue against distributism... but I argue against this in principle; I think it carries many of the same principle evils that socialism carries even if it could work well.