Distributism

[Anomaly]

You don't know where philosophical theory ends and practical reality starts. Stop trying to put an extreme spin on me pointing out the limits that lack of experience put on it.

Sure it smells of elderberries if a business owner decides to eliminate or outsource jobs. That's why some people chose to run their own business. Others, like me, don't want to have to depend on employees and want to be an employee without any control whether the company wants to eliminate my job or close my division. Since a greater percentage of people continue to live above poverty level, it seems the overall trend that lost jobs are replaced with better jobs. That's a general trend, so exceptions don't make the rule. Back to the 17% increase of those in poverty, I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if the population increases with poverty rates being stable, then the # of people in poverty increase but the percentage of the population in poverty remans the same.

[goldenchild17]

Stand corrected on poverty levels. I was reading my graph wrong. It does seem to have gone down .

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1079269' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:53 PM']
Ah okay so now you agree with me that there are not such good quality products out there? Not long ago you were screaming at me to find an example. You just gave one.
[/quote]The shog-gun approach is getting tiresome and too Budgelike. I DON'T agree with you that there are only cheap products out there and that quality can't be found. There are cheap products out there that we can choose to buy (or not). There is a broad range of quality to let people make their own value choices.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079287' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:05 PM']
You don't know where philosophical theory ends and practical reality starts. [/quote]
Ok. Thanks for pointing out my stupidity once again . Practical reality starts once we determine what the principles are. Once we do that then we are able to start working on a method to employ these principles. It's a two step process.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079287' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:05 PM']Stop trying to put an extreme spin on me pointing out the limits that lack of experience put on it. [/quote]
What's extreme here? I'm just saying that because we dont' have experience in a specific thing does not mean we cannot come to understand it. We can never come to understand the physical pains of pregnancy, if you're a guy, but we can come to understand whether or not abortion is wrong based on reason.

[quote]Sure it smells of elderberries if a business owner decides to eliminate or outsource jobs.[/quote]

This we agree on .

[quote]That's why some people chose to run their own business.[/quote]

And many who would like to can't. Either because they are run out of town by bigger companies, or they have recieved such a small percentage of the wealth that they have not enough extra to start a business, which is expensive to do. Yes, they may have enough to live off of. But they have no choice to run a business if they choose to because everything they have goes towards living, not towards starting a business.


[quote]Others, like me, don't want to have to depend on employees and want to be an employee without any control whether the company wants to eliminate my job or close my division. Since a greater percentage of people continue to live above poverty level, it seems the overall trend that lost jobs are replaced with better jobs.[/quote]
Yet even if this be the case, it remains that any time lost due to a person having to switch/find a new job makes the difference obsolete as far as I can tell.


[quote]That's a general trend, so exceptions don't make the rule. Back to the 17% increase of those in poverty, I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if the population increases with poverty rates being stable, then the # of people in poverty increase but the percentage of the population in poverty remans the same.

[/quote]

Makes sense. I'm not going to focus on numbers any more so it doesn't really matter to me anymore. Yes capitalism seems to help people stay at a subsistence level. If people wish to remain at nothing more than a subsistence level living paycheck to paycheck fine, that's their own prerogative (sp?) But I maintain that those at a subsistence level have no choice but to remain there (unless they catch a major break, which happens not so often) because they have nothing over and above with which they can either invest and/or start a business.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079291' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:14 PM']
The shog-gun approach is getting tiresome and too Budgelike. I DON'T agree with you that there are only cheap products out there and that quality can't be found. There are cheap products out there that we can choose to buy (or not). There is a broad range of quality to let people make their own value choices.
[/quote]

hmm but I never said quality doesn't exist. I simply said that the cheap products are becoming more prevalent. For every good brand there are at least a few crappy brands that provide the same product. That's all I'm saying. Many people settle for these lesser brands because they don't have the extra income to choose anything better. So it becomes a vicious cycle. And that applies to those poorer people who are trying to do the best they can. Many poor people make bad decisions and take the expensive stuff, going into debt and becoming even more poor.

Edited September 29, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Anomaly]

Making progress...

You said captialism only helps people stay at a subsistence level with no choice but to stay there.
That's wrong based on the fact you just acknowledged the poverty rate has gone down. In just the last 40 years it's gone down almost 40% while singel income households have increased.

It doesn't take substantial personal wealth to start up a business and small business aren't always crushed by large businesses. When a small business attempts to compete for the exact same market as a large business, of course it will fail. That's common sense, but people don't always use common sense. If a small business attempts to compete for the lowest price on cheap goods, it cannot generate the volume to make the low margin work. The small business has to cover higher costs by selling something else such as convenience, a greater selection, higher quality, better service, etc. If you can justify your higher price with value and enough people recoginize the value and are willing and able to pay for it, you're in the money. Otherwise, you're out of business. That's capitalism.

Edit to add:
I kind of had an epiphany. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the following statement make sense to you. I think you equate capitalism as being materialsim.

Capitalism is not materialism. Capitalism is an economic system while materialism is a symptom of cultural mores that is able to thrive in a capitalist economy.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']
Making progress...

You said captialism only helps people stay at a subsistence level with no choice but to stay there.
That's wrong based on the fact you just acknowledged the poverty rate has gone down. In just the last 40 years it's gone down almost 40% while singel income households have increased. [/quote]

Sure, I'm not positive that the two are exactly related though. Are people from the poverty levels the ones creating businesses? Or is it those in the middle class who have a little left over?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']It doesn't take substantial personal wealth to start up a business [/quote]

I wouldn't say it's easy though. One needs to buy the property and the equipment, and hire people which costs money and whatever else. I don't think someone that has to use all their income for living expenses is quite capable to accomplishing this.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']and small business aren't always crushed by large businesses. [/quote]
Yes, not always, because some are allowed to operate on their own scale. This is how I think the economy should work.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']When a small business attempts to compete for the exact same market as a large business, of course it will fail. That's common sense, but people don't always use common sense. If a small business attempts to compete for the lowest price on cheap goods, it cannot generate the volume to make the low margin work. The small business has to cover higher costs by selling something else such as convenience, a greater selection, higher quality, better service, etc. If you can justify your higher price with value and enough people recoginize the value and are willing and able to pay for it, you're in the money. Otherwise, you're out of business. That's capitalism. [/quote]

Hence the problem I have with big business. Mega corporations, like Wal-mart for example, try to provide everything that a person needs. Everything from food to clothing to healthcare to whatever. This leaves few options for others who would like to provide what they are good at.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1079303' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:28 PM']Edit to add:
I kind of had an epiphany. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does the following statement make sense to you. I think you equate capitalism as being materialsim.

Capitalism is not materialism. Capitalism is an economic system while materialism is a symptom of cultural mores that is able to thrive in a capitalist economy.
[/quote]

I wouldn't say it IS capitalism. But I would say that it is inherently driven by it. Materialism is the driving force, Capitalism is the method employed to achieve this force. That's how I would put it at this point.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1078783' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:36 PM']
I'm making a bit of a retreat, as I don't know enough about this subject. So I'm using a different tactic. I am saying that I think inflation is inherently attached to the success and/or failure of capitalism. In capitalism, wealth is determined by your cashflow, or your stocks. In distributism it is based on land ownership and control over one's own destiny without being affected by another. Which is more stable? The ever changing currencies? Or good land?[/quote]
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, yet you have no qualms about telling others how the economy ought to be run.

Land retains its value in a free-market economy. You're not making a cohesive argument here, merely throwing around words and blowing smoke.

[quote]That is something I'm not sure I could develop as economics is not my specialty. But I think it is something that could easily be constructed, either by going back to townships, and closeknit communities like we had in medieval times or some other such method. That would be how I would do it.[/quote]
Yeah, all we need to do is simply go back to medieval times. It's easy if you try . . .

[quote]If companies kept their workers and their buildings within their community this wouldn't be an issue.[/quote]
And what if they don't? Seems that would require a lot of government interference to enforce.
And what if they want to export their goods services to other communities? Or people in other communities want to buy their goods or services? Would all commerce between "communities" be outlawed by our ever-benevolent distributist government?
(More on this later)


[quote]I'd say it'd require some. [/quote]
I'd say goodbye to the principle of limited government.


[quote]Again, it is an ideal situation. Can it be done in a country I think is already so far gone? Probably not. I think most people would not be willing to go along with this. But that doesn't stop me from thinking it's the right thing to do.

Something affects another man's ability to thrive when his job is taken or his business is bought out or forced to go under due to another one taking over. I think some form of punishment should be had for those who tried to take advantage of others by overstepping their boundaries. Crimes should be punished. I believe taking advantage of another man should be a crime. I don't know about the customers end of it yet. That is the one thing I need to think more on . And in this system rival businesses would be non-existent because no two businesses would be providing the same goods or services.[/quote]
How do we define "taking advantage of another man"? Simply providing better quality products or services at a lower price is to be considered a crime in Distributist-Land, if it happens to hurt someone else who cannot compete?
Such a system would reward mediocrity and make excellence in business a crime. (As well as give government unprecedented power over people's lives).
The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw!
(I think the only people who would really prosper here would be the lawyers!)
All I can say is I thank God your Distributist utopia is only a fantasy!

[quote]I think so. However, I think in a distributist society, quality would go way up, so I don't think there would be the threat of a sucky pizza .[/quote]
I'm sorry, my bad. I was forgetting that in our imaginary Distributivist Big Rock Candy Mountain utopia, everything would be perfect and wonderful and there would be no problems or defects with anything!

[quote]Again, the consumer end I need to think more on.[/quote]
True. Think up.
Seems the consumers would be the real criminals here, because they, after all, are the one's choosing to do business with Benito, and thus harm poor Tony's business. Darned consumer choice!

[quote]I think so. This would affect those who were trying to make an honest living. I think if people want to make the trip to get the better pizza then fine. This will force the local pizza company to try a little harder. Where the better pizza company oversteps it's bounds is when it starts the delivery service, because this would be directly entering another man's domain to put it simply.[/quote]
Who defines whose domain is whose? Is it a matter of first come-first served? Whoever happens to have the first business in place is to have his business protected from competition by the law, no matter how lousy his business may be?
Seems a fine way to perpetuate mediocrity and imcompetance!

Perhaps Tony is not cut out to be chef, and should seek employment in some other area to which he is more suited.

And are all deliveries of any goods from one "domain to another be outlawed??

And let us keep in mind that some commerce will be necessary, as not all all local "communities" will be able to supply all their own goods. Import and export of things such as crops, oil, etc. is required for most places.

Sounds like the Distributist-Land police would have their hands full! They'd need quite a force to go about keeping down all this competition - hope they don't have to deal with too many real crimes like robberies or murders!
Our peaceful Distributist utopia is starting to look more and more like a distopian totalitarian police-state.



[quote]Initially sure government would need to be involved to put everything in order. Why would it hurt the businesses and customers?[/quote]
Well, we've seen how it would hurt businesses deemed to competitive, and the customers would suffer without being able to choose the best deals from competing businesses.

[i]Initially[/i] massive government interference would be involved . . . What makes you think this governement would grow smaller or less intrusive with time. Experience shows that once government gains powers, it is loathe to give them up, and usually seeks more. And your whole system seems to assume that those in government would be totally benevolent and wise and just, ,and concerned only for the common good. How naive!



[quote]Can't really afford a book right now. Link might be better. I think Communist and Socialist countries had other issues than price limiting. I would be interested in seeing how setting a maximum price is harmful to a society.[/quote]
Unfortunately, the text in the book is not available electronically as far as I'm aware. I would highly recommend it though. Woods answers all your "distributist" arguments and more, and a lot better and more thoroughly than myself.

In brief, government price-fixing is harmful, because supply and demand fluctuate.
Providing a product costs a business money. The actual cost of providing a good or service can vary with supply and other issues.
Government price-fixing, even at its best, cannot account for these fluctuations and variations.

To use the pizza example, let's say a blight or drought hurts dairy cattle production one year. The price of coagulated milk rises drastically as a result. Tony is forced to raise the price of pizza to keep his business profitable due to the high price of coagulated milk. But the government has fixed the price of pizza to a now-unprofitable level, and Tony is forced to either sell his pizza shop, or have his family starve.

[quote]Just because something works better doesn't make it ethical though. [/quote]
All an economy does is provide for the material good of people. If a system works in raising people's material well-being it should not be replaced by one which does a poor job of this simply because the latter claims to be based on some noble ideal of equality or whatever.

And how is the government fixing prices more ethical than fair prices being reached the natural way, by agreement of buyer and seller?

[quote]Possibly. I am interested in seeing the data that shows that doing this is actually what hurts an economy.[/quote]
And I'd be interested in data showing where government price-fixing has actually benefitted the economy.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, yet you have no qualms about telling others how the economy ought to be run. [/quote]
Basically. At least I'm being honest and have been this whole time. You two's almost obsessive need to point out my obvious stupidity, which I agree with, is really getting overboard. I have no problem positing theories of things I try to think through. If they are wrong then it's wrong. Once I'm shown that it's wrong and I can accept it as wrong, then I move on. Until then I wait to see which theory holds up to scrutiny.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Land retains its value in a free-market economy. You're not making a cohesive argument here, merely throwing around words and blowing smoke.
Yeah, all we need to do is simply go back to medieval times. It's easy if you try . . .
And what if they don't? Seems that would require a lot of government interference to enforce.
And what if they want to export their goods services to other communities? Or people in other communities want to buy their goods or services? Would all commerce between "communities" be outlawed by our ever-benevolent distributist government?
(More on this later) [/quote]

I don't expect countries to want to. Unless it is a fully Catholic nation in which the concept of a fair shot for everybody and less of an obsession with money. I'm positing how things should be. Not necessarily how they can happen in modern times.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']I'd say goodbye to the principle of limited government.[/quote]

In a Catholic nation there would be minimal need for government intervention, as this concept would be shared among the populace.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']How do we define "taking advantage of another man"?[/quote]

I've given my definition multiple times. Honestly I've been trying to stay patient, but one can only run a discussion in circles so many times. If you want to see my definition again either look through the last few posts of mine (in which it is contained) or ask me which one and I'll show you if you truly can't see it right there.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Simply providing better quality products or services at a lower price is to be considered a crime in Distributist-Land, if it happens to hurt someone else who cannot compete?[/quote]

If it takes away another man's fair shot yes. Why is considering taking advantage of another man not seen as a bad thing around here?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Such a system would reward mediocrity and make excellence in business a crime. (As well as give government unprecedented power over people's lives).[/quote]
I believe the opposite. In the system, as evidenced in things such as the guild system, people took pride in their creations and were generally exceptionally good at their craft. Today we have some good products, but for every decent brand there are multiple crappy brands making the same product but of far lesser quality. So I say it's Capitalism that is the defender of mediocrity in this.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw!
(I think the only people who would really prosper here would be the lawyers!)
All I can say is I thank God your Distributist utopia is only a fantasy![/quote]

Nowadays. You do realize this exact form has been in existence in many eras? The middle ages, the initial western push in America towards farming, basically just about most places before the Industrial Revolution. It is no fantasy. It just is not in practice today.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']I'm sorry, my bad. I was forgetting that in our imaginary Distributivist Big Rock Candy Mountain utopia, everything would be perfect and wonderful and there would be no problems or defects with anything! [/quote]
There is no system that is perfect. Never has been, never will be. We're talking about what is better, not what is perfect. But if you want to continue talking down to me fine. I figured I could expect a more decent charitable discussion with some one like you, but I guess not.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM'] True. Think up.
Seems the consumers would be the real criminals here, because they, after all, are the one's choosing to do business with Benito, and thus harm poor Tony's business. Darned consumer choice!
Who defines whose domain is whose? Is it a matter of first come-first served? Whoever happens to have the first business in place is to have his business protected from competition by the law, no matter how lousy his business may be?
Seems a fine way to perpetuate mediocrity and imcompetance! [/quote]
Again. If you can show me that the guild system of Medieval times developed mediocre products then you will have a point. But you can't seem to break away from hypotheticals. Distributism has existed before. Therefore you have something to compare your statements to. Back them up by something from a distributist model that has existed.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1079829' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:25 PM']Perhaps Tony is not cut out to be chef, and should seek employment in some other area to which he is more suited.

And are all deliveries of any goods from one "domain to another be outlawed??

And let us keep in mind that some commerce will be necessary, as not all all local "communities" will be able to supply all their own goods. Import and export of things such as crops, oil, etc. is required for most places.

Sounds like the Distributist-Land police would have their hands full! They'd need quite a force to go about keeping down all this competition - hope they don't have to deal with too many real crimes like robberies or murders!
Our peaceful Distributist utopia is starting to look more and more like a distopian totalitarian police-state.
Well, we've seen how it would hurt businesses deemed to competitive, and the customers would suffer without being able to choose the best deals from competing businesses.

[i]Initially[/i] massive government interference would be involved . . . What makes you think this governement would grow smaller or less intrusive with time. Experience shows that once government gains powers, it is loathe to give them up, and usually seeks more. And your whole system seems to assume that those in government would be totally benevolent and wise and just, ,and concerned only for the common good. How naive!
Unfortunately, the text in the book is not available electronically as far as I'm aware. I would highly recommend it though. Woods answers all your "distributist" arguments and more, and a lot better and more thoroughly than myself.

In brief, government price-fixing is harmful, because supply and demand fluctuate.
Providing a product costs a business money. The actual cost of providing a good or service can vary with supply and other issues.
Government price-fixing, even at its best, cannot account for these fluctuations and variations.

To use the pizza example, let's say a blight or drought hurts dairy cattle production one year. The price of coagulated milk rises drastically as a result. Tony is forced to raise the price of pizza to keep his business profitable due to the high price of coagulated milk. But the government has fixed the price of pizza to a now-unprofitable level, and Tony is forced to either sell his pizza shop, or have his family starve.


All an economy does is provide for the material good of people. If a system works in raising people's material well-being it should not be replaced by one which does a poor job of this simply because the latter claims to be based on some noble ideal of equality or whatever.

And how is the government fixing prices more ethical than fair prices being reached the natural way, by agreement of buyer and seller?
And I'd be interested in data showing where government price-fixing has actually benefitted the economy.
[/quote]


I was going to respond to this but it is clear from your pointing out my stupidity and your condescending tones that you have no wish to have a real discussion. I have been making a concerted effort to not be involved in such discussions as they do nothing for anybody involved except lower the standards of such discussions. If you were honestly concerned I think you would be more conscientious of how you conduct this. But it seems to me you are just here to make me sound stupid. Heaven knows I do a good enough job of that on my own.

All I can say at this point is if you actually are interested in convincing me, which I'm totally open to, then take your accusations and apply them to a past distributist model. There are plenty enough of them to choose from. Pick one and go with it.

Edited September 30, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1080067' date='Sep 30 2006, 12:56 AM']
Basically. At least I'm being honest and have been this whole time. You two's almost obsessive need to point out my obvious stupidity, which I agree with, is really getting overboard. I have no problem positing theories of things I try to think through. If they are wrong then it's wrong. Once I'm shown that it's wrong and I can accept it as wrong, then I move on. Until then I wait to see which theory holds up to scrutiny.[/quote]
I'm sorry you found my tone offensive. I am trying to get you to think. Too many Catholics (and schismatics too, I suppose) are too quick to jump on the "distributivist" bandwagon without thinking through how such a system would work in practice.

[quote]I don't expect countries to want to. Unless it is a fully Catholic nation in which the concept of a fair shot for everybody and less of an obsession with money. I'm positing how things should be. Not necessarily how they can happen in modern times.

In a Catholic nation there would be minimal need for government intervention, as this concept would be shared among the populace. [/quote]
Here you falsely assume that every Catholic is a Distributist. I know many devout orthodox Catholics who are strongly opposed to distributism. Thomas E. Woods Jr., the author of [i]The Church and the Market[/i] book I mentioned earlier is a strong critic of distributist theory, and is also a Traditionalist Catholic, who writes for a number of Catholic journals. Serious Catholics are quite split over the Distributism issue, and among those calling themselves "distributists," there is considerable disagreement about how distributism should be properly carried out in practice.

[quote]I've given my definition multiple times. Honestly I've been trying to stay patient, but one can only run a discussion in circles so many times. If you want to see my definition again either look through the last few posts of mine (in which it is contained) or ask me which one and I'll show you if you truly can't see it right there.
If it takes away another man's fair shot yes. Why is considering taking advantage of another man not seen as a bad thing around here?[/quote]
Well, my asking the question is in part rhetorical, to help you see the ambiguity inheritent in this charge. Where you might see "taking advantage of another man," another may see simply someone running a smart, high-quality business.
To use my old pizza-shop scenario, Benito did not have anything personal against Tony. He was simply more successful at his business, and Tony was unable to compete. Benito should not be punished for his success.
If Benito did something directly to harm Tony and his business, such as torching his pizza shop, or stealing from him, [i]then[/i] he has committed a crime and should be punished.
It is not the job of government to micro-manage to make sure everyone's situation is in every way equal and fair. That amounts to socialism.

[quote]I believe the opposite. In the system, as evidenced in things such as the guild system, people took pride in their creations and were generally exceptionally good at their craft. Today we have some good products, but for every decent brand there are multiple crappy brands making the same product but of far lesser quality. So I say it's Capitalism that is the defender of mediocrity in this.[/quote]
To be honest, I find this argument somewhat bizarre. You maintain that quality products are available, but complain that cheaper, lower quality products are also available. If you do not like the lower-quality products, you are not forced to buy them. You can choose to buy the higher-quality instead. That is the beauty of a free-market system. Yes, you may have to pay more for the higher-quality product, but high quality has never come cheap.
The fact is that there is a greater amount of products of all quality available at lower prices under the free market system than there were in pre-industrial times. Countless goods which Americans of all economic classes take for granted today, would have been available only to the very rich in earlier ages, if they were indeed available at all.
(And most modern mechanical and electronic devices are dependent upon industrial mass-production in order to exist in any quantity for an afordable price.)

Again, as Anomaly pointed out, it would be useful if you gave some concrete specific examples of what you are talking about, rather than talking in vague generalities.

[quote]Nowadays. You do realize this exact form has been in existence in many eras? The middle ages, the initial western push in America towards farming, basically just about most places before the Industrial Revolution. It is no fantasy. It just is not in practice today.[/quote]
Actually, in earlier ages, technological and logistical limitations prevented modern industrialization as we know it. Private commerce and business was not agressively limited by the government intrusion you propose. The free market "capitalist" economy in fact has its root in the middle ages, with the decline of feudalism and the rise of a merchant class.

Most people during this time lived at close to subsitence level. If crops were bad, people starved to death. Life expectancy was low. Luxuries could be afforded only by the rich.
I don't think most modern day "distributists" would be able to last one day as a medeival peasant (nor probably even as a medieval nobleman). They sit around in their air-conditioned offices, and munch donuts as they complain about how "capitalism" has oppressed them.

If people want to buy land in remote areas, and live off the land, growing their own food, and making their own goods, more power to them! Nothing prevents from doing this, other than their own aversion to the hardship involved.

However, the great majority do not take this route, but instead sit around and beesh about modern capitalism, and call for more government interference in private enterprise.

We need less government intrusion, not more.

[quote]There is no system that is perfect. Never has been, never will be. We're talking about what is better, not what is perfect. But if you want to continue talking down to me fine. I figured I could expect a more decent charitable discussion with some one like you, but I guess not.


Again. If you can show me that the guild system of Medieval times developed mediocre products then you will have a point. But you can't seem to break away from hypotheticals. Distributism has existed before. Therefore you have something to compare your statements to. Back them up by something from a distributist model that has existed.
I was going to respond to this but it is clear from your pointing out my stupidity and your condescending tones that you have no wish to have a real discussion. I have been making a concerted effort to not be involved in such discussions as they do nothing for anybody involved except lower the standards of such discussions. If you were honestly concerned I think you would be more conscientious of how you conduct this. But it seems to me you are just here to make me sound stupid. Heaven knows I do a good enough job of that on my own.

All I can say at this point is if you actually are interested in convincing me, which I'm totally open to, then take your accusations and apply them to a past distributist model. There are plenty enough of them to choose from. Pick one and go with it.[/quote]
Okay, show a past "distributist" model, and prove statistically that the majority of people were better off materially.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Lately I've been kicking around an idea I call Green Pseudo-anarcho-distributism. I'll call it Ecoantisubsidiarianism for short. hehe j/k

You fellows are having quite the debate! Cheers!

[Alycin]

I don't really understand the whole capitalism vs communism vs socialism vs everything else argument.

I don't appreciate people that say the word "communist" as if it were a swear word though. IF communism actually worked, it would be a good idea. It doesn't. It doesn't make everyone equal, and never will, because humans are not perfect and some people are going to want to be "on top" and some people are going to be lazy and not do their fair share of work while others would work really hard and they would both get the same pay.

(This is all to my understanding... I could be wrong because as I said before this is not my forte at all!)

IMO... I would rather things NOT change right now, except in the fact that welfare should be improved or completely re-done, and other systems should be put in place to help those who really need it. I don't think it's fair to say that EVERYONE on welfare plays the system, or to villianize the system because there are humans who make mistakes.

Anyway just my 2 cents, I don't know enough about this topic and probably shouldn't be talking about it.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Alycin

[Laudate_Dominum]

Thank you Alycin! I don't know enough about this topic either and probably shouldn't be talking about it but paradoxically it is precisely this fact that is compelling me to present and defend my theory of Green Pseudo-anarcho-distributism! Weeee!!

Nah.. I'll hold off because I don't want to get in the way of the goldenchild-socrates debate.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1449819' date='Jan 23 2008, 09:16 PM']I don't really understand the whole capitalism vs communism vs socialism vs everything else argument.

I don't appreciate people that say the word "communist" as if it were a swear word though. IF communism actually worked, it would be a good idea. It doesn't. It doesn't make everyone equal, and never will, because humans are not perfect and some people are going to want to be "on top" and some people are going to be lazy and not do their fair share of work while others would work really hard and they would both get the same pay.

(This is all to my understanding... I could be wrong because as I said before this is not my forte at all!)

IMO... I would rather things NOT change right now, except in the fact that welfare should be improved or completely re-done, and other systems should be put in place to help those who really need it. I don't think it's fair to say that EVERYONE on welfare plays the system, or to villianize the system because there are humans who make mistakes.

Anyway just my 2 cents, I don't know enough about this topic and probably shouldn't be talking about it.

[/quote]
Ah, the old Distributism/Capitalism debates - good times!

While you are correct in pointing out that Communism would never work in practice, Communism is also wrong and unjust at even the theoretical level, as it explicitly denies persons their intrinsic right to property, a right the Church has repeatedly affirmed. Communism makes all material goods the property of the state.

And when most people say "Communism," they are referring to Soviet-based Marxist-Leninist Communism, a thoroughly godless system which has been responsible for more murders and attrocities in its 90+ years of existence than any other system of government in the world.

Given the horrific history of Communism, "Communist" fully deserves to be at least as reviled a term as "Nazi."

Edited January 24, 2008 by Socrates

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is a tough thread.. I want to root for Socrates but I also want to root for goldenchild... I'll root for whoever is due for a post.

goldenchild: w0000t! I'm wooting for you dude! Post, post, post!

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1449862' date='Jan 23 2008, 10:28 PM']Ah, the old Distributism/Capitalism debates - good times!

While you are correct in pointing out that Communism would never work in practice, Communism is also wrong and unjust at even the theoretical level, as it explicitly denies persons their intrinsic right to property, a right the Church has repeatedly affirmed. Communism makes all material goods the property of the state.

And when most people say "Communism," they are referring to Soviet-based Marxist-Leninist Communism, a thoroughly godless system which has been responsible for more murders and attrocities in its 90+ years of existence than any other system of government in the world.

Given the horrific history of Communism, "Communist" fully deserves to be at least as reviled a term as "Nazi."[/quote]

But weren't a lot of people technically communists that had no choice in the matter?

(Curious... again, this isn't my topic so I'm always willing to learn.)