Distributionism And Free Market Capitalism

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay so there's the concept of distributism. i remember me and al bickering about whether under distributionism whether gov should be the further of capitalism, when the free market and capitialism isn't working properly, or whether it should be charity. al said charity. and i said the gov.

i pointed out that all those quotes from the popes said that ensuring a basic minimum, when the fundamental nature of the economy is whack and preventing a basic minimum, is a matter of "justice". justice as a word tends to be more of a matter of right, than a matter of charity, and that means it's something the gov should do, i'd argue reading the popes. and taht this isn't something that necessarily starts at the level of charity, and works its way up the subsidiarity heirarcy of intervention.

my question... is. if distributiism requires charity as the beginning, as al suggested, despite my other argumetns and point about what the popes said..... how is it really any different than mere unfettered capitalist thought, with notions of charity and subsidiarity? that's what hard core economic conservatives think anyway. so is there really a poit in calling it distributioism, and acting as if it's some third way etc?
i say, that it's not really any different,,,, lends itself to the notion, that the gov should intervene... and that popes call it a matter of "right" means the gov should intervene. and all the policy arguments i made, means the gov should intervene.

note though... i'm not saying they should intervene all the time. only when the economy is fundametnally screwed up such that one can't get a basic minimum etc. (charity is stil warranted when peole are simply down on their luck etc... and the gov isn't to get involved)

so the questio remains how is distributionism really any different than current conservative christian libertarian thought?
where has al been anyway? he was a good stimulant of higher thought.

[Didymus]

I believe Chesterton said that the idea of an unlimited attainment of private property is as absurd a notion as the unlimited attainment of wives in marriage.. or something like that.

Distributism runs counters the idea that I can continue to pursue capital that I have not labored for - to the detriment of another's ability to provide for their self and their family.

Capitalism, I believe, lends to the idea that as a company owner, I have the right to outsource labor in order to maximize profits, the right to demand more from my employees while exchanging for less, and the right to buy and sell ownership without so much as understanding what it is that I actually own.

I don't exactly know where Al stands on this all. I would like to hear more too. But as of yet it seems to me that Distributism is not against all forms of restriction. I first learned about Distributism from Al though, so I am very interested to learn more.

[Aloysius]

i continue to disagree with your charecterization of me siding with "charity" over "government"... that's not at all what I said, it was just the only way I fit into your preconcieved paradigms.

the point I have made is that government "intervention" should never create continuous government regulation/involvement. intervention in bad economic activity should only be the way police intervene in crime. it has to be temporary, punishing the bad and restoring justice so that people can continue to freely act within a truly free market (free not only from the excesses of large government, but also from the excesses of large businesses; individuals are free within the market from forces which would restrict their freedom, private or otherwise, because the government checks the power of business not by regulation which is continuous, but by acts of justice to punish userers and those who attempt to create wealth they do not earn by their labor)... for this to occur you need a government you can trust.

now, this can never consist of the government breaking the 7th commandment, you cannot steal private property just because someone has too much; but you can punish and even fine people if they accumulate capital that they do not labor for, when they exploit people. I have considered such concepts as laws against ownership of businesses in areas where one does not live (though many businesses in different locations could band together in cooperation to share costs of distribution and such over large distances)... ie walmart should not own the wal-mart in my town because the CEO/owner of Walmart doesn't live in my hometown, but the walmart in my hometown, owned by someone who lived here, could be voluntarily part of some larger walmart cooperative by which the supply chain could still bring merchandise through large distances at cheap prices.... ie, something similar to franchising could exist... but the owners of businesses must live in the areas where that business is.

there's still a completely free market here, and completely free ownership of private property; you simply cannot own property that you yourself do not actually have, you can't create a funnel of money from somewhere halfway accross the country or the world that smells of elderberries money up into your own pocket.... you must operate locally, or if you wish to operate nationally or globally you must do so in cooperation with businesses from other locations not by owning someething in that location. this is one idea of a law that could be enforced, I guess I'll propose it as the topic of discussion here, just as a proposition of something that might be a distributivist policy. but please note: there would have to be a check against the enforcement of this creating large centralized powerful governments to enforce it, there must be subsidiarity in the enforcement of it (local governments protecting their own areas interests, for instance, and only larger governments when there are issues that only the larger governments can do)

I have said that I think the only way distributivism will ever happen is if people in the private sector band together in neighborhoods wherein they attempt to be voluntarily distributivist; because we'll never have a government we can entrust to enforce such laws without usurping too much power over us and restricting our freedom, give them a bone like that to enforce, and they'll be socialists within the week. that's why I tend to support libertarian leaning political efforts (though I support the ones, like Ron Paul, who are also against big business because they see it as getting special treatment from the government)...because the government should be small enough to efficiently enforce laws against unjust economic practices (not take over the economy, enforce laws against bad economic practices)

[Didymus]

The idea of a locally owned Wal-mart would also eliminate the need for workers to form unions to demand decent wages and benefits, since the owner would be a member of the same community that he or she is employing out of. Unless you want trouble from your own neighbors, you won't be denying anyone else the ability to fully support themselves and their families. You would provide for decent wages and employment.

It just makes sense. I love this stuff.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Didymus

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, perhaps you're into 'zoning' types laws etc. eg, your walmart example. ie, the gov is involved if it has to be if the private sector isn't doing what it should.
but, when push comes to shove, and people are down and out, you want private charity to act first, to my understanding, to rectify the destitute amoung us.
(we both think it should be temporary, i'm talking about first line of defense in that temproary nature)

Al had said this in an earlier thread. this is what i was responding to back when i mad this thread.
"everyone's entitled to the opportunity to earn the basics and own the basics on their own. the theoretical distributivist stuff I've been talking about is how one would achieve what I think would be the most ideal situation, however back to the practical: obviously welfare to help people become self sufficient when they are at a point where they cannot afford the basics is good. don't make them dependent upon it, obviously, and have the ultimate goal to bring people to their own private property. this is not socialism, this is a form of government charity. private charity is definitely preferable and it might be better to have the government finance private charities rather than have them directly involved where they will likely end up creating dependency (as is the nature of government help, it creates dependency and begins to hinder freedom). but it is only to be a safety-net, there is no justification for providing the basics to everyone."

you said private charity is what should be done.
i may have misunderstood you, in that you were just saying ideally the economy is not so flawed, or whatever, such that gov should never have to intervene.

as i said before in responding to the quote, i don't know why it's euphemised by saying 'gov charity'. (to avoid being called socialistic) but it's semantics.
but semantics only to a point. i think the underlying ideological points that causeone to say charity is important. ie, charity implies grace, good will, etc. it doesn't convey what i think is proper, eg, justice, right. the same types of words the popes use. ie, itdoesn't to me capture what the popes have said.


[quote]QUOTE
Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

QUOTE
…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.

QUOTE
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.

QUOTE
What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.

QUOTE
To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality.

The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.

QUOTE
"Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. "

QUOTE
property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, 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 that they should serve labour,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 socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production.

QUOTE
Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equality...If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

QUOTE
In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results.

QUOTE
Given these conditions, it is obvious that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and progress.

QUOTE
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences.[/quote]


that i see, there's essentially two strands of how people interpret the popes when they say an opportunity is a "right" and fixing it is "justice". some would say the gov should only get involved when people are doing worse than living in a box and almost dying. others say it should be proportionate to and what the society is able to afford within reason, eg if it can afford a minimum wage type lifestyle, or at least something more than lving in a box, then it should provide for it.
that i see, there are essentially two strands of distributism thought that fixes the above situation. even if you look at the wiki entry, it shows these:
apparently some say distributionism merely is an unbrella phrase encompasing solidarity/subsidiarty, and the gov should only get involved when charity fails, all the time.
others say that if everyone is entitled to an opportunity, then it's a right, and the gov should intervene from the very beginning.
not for everything though, only certain things, sometimes.

i don't know why we're even bothering calling it distributionism if all it is is an umbrella phrase. i don't know how one could get around "justice" etc that the popes talk about, by insisting on it being charity first.

Edited December 10, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1723575' date='Dec 9 2008, 07:08 PM']The idea of a locally owned Wal-mart would also eliminate the need for workers to form unions to demand decent wages and benefits, since the owner would be a member of the same community that he or she is employing out of. Unless you want trouble from your own neighbors, you won't be denying anyone else the ability to fully support themselves and their families. You would provide for decent wages and employment.

It just makes sense. I love this stuff.[/quote]

I wish. Chicago Public Schools is trying to break up the teacher's union by strong-arming the creation of charter schools through [url="http://www.ren2010.cps.k12.il.us/"]Renaissance 2010[/url] (which aren't organized), and that's all local. They're constantly trying to get away with stuff, too, in regards to the union.

Maybe that's different though, because Chicago is bigger, and presumably more anonymous? By that I mean, because Chicago is bigger, you are less likely to consider some Joe-Schmoe that you meet on the street to be your "neighbor", and therefore less likely to look out for his well-being? Big city = dog-eat-dog mentality?

[dairygirl4u2c]

when the gov does get involved, i wouldn't be opposed to te local going first then up etc. the only problem i see is that it'd be hard to manage when the local is doing bad or when not, by the upper level. and the upper always thinks it can't compete with others, eg the states say they can't compete.
that's why i'm not necessarily opposed to the fed gov intervening as a practical matter sooner rather than later.
eg, if it's merely a safety net, defining what should be common dignity to everyone, i don't see why we don't cut out the middle man.

now, with that said, the current gov situation, is out of hand. more harm than good. maybe as a practical matter, i shouldn't expect the feds to do anything competently. it's like sending the swat team to change a light bulb. too much.

i could see arguing even from my perspective, that a more localized approach needs tried, where it works its way up the chain.

it seems like we're darned if we do or darned if we don't, to a certain degree. for practical purposes.
i'm not sure which would work better practically speaking.

it'd seem the local gov etc would negliect their people. that's historicaly what has happened. cause they need to compete. ther'es no oversight.

eg, the fire of a river cause states want to compete. feds defeated this. the destruction of permanent enviro habitats for short term gain, the feds defeat this too. "can't aX
care cause taxes are too high and can't compete" fed makes it an even playing field.
now, some compettion is good.
it's always about finding a balance.

Edited December 10, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus as a practical matter, wallmart is always arguing it does better for the community when they go in, and can do cheaper if a national chain etc. i think this is true sometimes, and sometimes not.

the local gov prob would need involved.

i doubt you culd get private sector to work very well on its own. ie, outta the good will of their heart, when the profits are better doing it the current way.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1598527' date='Jul 12 2008, 10:51 AM']i pointed out that all those quotes from the popes said that ensuring a basic minimum, when the fundamental nature of the economy is whack and preventing a basic minimum, is a matter of "justice".[/quote]

FWIW, this can be accomplished under capitalism as well, if not better than, any other economic system.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1598527' date='Jul 12 2008, 10:51 AM']my question... is. if distributiism requires charity as the beginning[/quote]

A forced redistribution of wealth requires abolishing charity at the beginning. If I may judge distributionism by its name, I'm against it for this reason.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1598527' date='Jul 12 2008, 10:51 AM']note though... i'm not saying they should intervene all the time. only when the economy is fundametnally screwed up such that one can't get a basic minimum etc.[/quote]

And who's going to decide when things are so screwed up? We have churches and non-profits within our capitalist system. Let's allow them to do their job.


[quote name='Didymus' post='1722560' date='Dec 8 2008, 03:55 PM']Capitalism, I believe, lends to the idea that as a company owner, I have the right to outsource labor in order to maximize profits, the right to demand more from my employees while exchanging for less, and the right to buy and sell ownership without so much as understanding what it is that I actually own.[/quote]

That's the negative extreme of capitalism. Most company owners are the kind of people who live next door, go to your parish, and shop at the same stores you do. They are considerate of their employees' needs, although they expect an honest days' work for a days' pay (as does God), and seek to provide the best product or service they can because they take pride in their work.

[quote name='Didymus' post='1723575' date='Dec 9 2008, 08:08 PM']The idea of a locally owned Wal-mart would also eliminate the need for workers to form unions to demand decent wages and benefits, since the owner would be a member of the same community that he or she is employing out of. Unless you want trouble from your own neighbors, you won't be denying anyone else the ability to fully support themselves and their families. You would provide for decent wages and employment.[/quote]

Every Wal-Mart already is locally-owned. Many employees are owners. Just about everyone who has a retirement plan probably owns Wal-Mart through a mutual fund. Tens of millions more people are invested in Wal-Mart as direct shareholders. Now, Wal-Mart could obviously stand to improve their employee and public relations, but unions won't accomplish that goal. Nor can Wal-Mart afford to pay much more than they already do. Their net profit margin is 3.4%, which would probably be wiped out completely by a 5% increase in wages.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1723847' date='Dec 10 2008, 01:31 AM']plus as a practical matter, wallmart is always arguing it does better for the community when they go in, and can do cheaper if a national chain etc. i think this is true sometimes, and sometimes not.[/quote]

Here is how capitalism works:

You don't like Wal-Mart? Shop elsewhere.

Can't afford to shop elsewhere? Thank God for Sam Walton, because you'd be worse off without him.

Keep this in mind: capitalism is always at work, regardless of what economic system people have tried to force into their society. Capitalism was at work in Communist Russia, it was at work during Old Testament times, and it's at work today in America. The only difference is how we allow it to work. Adam Smith didn't come up with this stuff... he was simply the first to make the observations and articulate them in a way that we finally had a name for what's been happening throughout human history.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1723847' date='Dec 10 2008, 01:31 AM']the local gov prob would need involved.

i doubt you culd get private sector to work very well on its own. ie, outta the good will of their heart, when the profits are better doing it the current way.[/quote]

Yes, the government always has our best interests at heart.

I, for one, am a Christian who doesn't trust any of these geniuses -- in government or at the heads of corporations -- and therefore am a capitalist because it's the only economic system that admits humanity has a sin problem and uses the forces of greed and pride, along with the generosity of good souls, to improve everyones' standard of living. In fact, even greed is kept in check by the greed of others: if you become too greedy, too lazy, or too prideful of your efforts, someone else will eventually come in and take your place. Every generation in America since the Industrial Revolution has had a national retail powerhouse that seemed impossible to defeat... but most of them steadily fade into the sunset until we hardly think about Woolworth's, Sears Roebuck & Co, or K-Mart. The same will probably happen to Wal-Mart in our childrens' generation.

Edited December 10, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[dairygirl4u2c]

just a few points, just so that it's clear, not that i tneeds to be said:
-distributionism is a catholic concept, as wiki etc will show
-distributionism is mostly capitalistic. all the goods of capitalism are had by distributionism. i'd think all the bads of it, are fixed, when it's something fundamentally flawed.
-i don't know how excplicity one doesn't think that laissez faire capitalism is at least sometimes not the ethical solution to a given problem, when the popes talk about 'justice' 'right' 'private property is subjected to opportunity to all' 'gov should do X'. are these popes being ignored? are they being said to be that 'rights' are to be fixed by charity? as i said, it doesn't seem like good will etc is properly the role to fix something when it's a 'right', and i don't see how people are responding to this point. the answer might be given by folks here, how the popes are ebing dealth with, i just don't see it very explicitly and so don't know how it's being answered.
-race to the bottom. look it up. walmart not giving its employees a whole lot could be said to be the price we pay for cheap stuff. were this situation required for society to operate effectively, maybe that's just the way it is. but i doubt it is. capitalism allows folks to compete to the detriment of everyone, cause that's where profits are. the flaw is in the theory. folks buy where it's cheap. they patronize there. they disregard what happens to the employees. now, they're not totally bad off, but another company could come in and do a whole lot worse to them. we'd be going down to the bottome of the barrrel.
-healthcare etc you name it. insurance standards race up, peple can't afford to go to the doctor cause of all these folks artificially racing prices up with insurance etc. fundamentally flawed problems. there's solutions to these problems, but it's not with capitalism, pure capitalism. we don't just say anyone who wants to be a doctor can be. we don't keep it so limited either. we do it smartly, which necessarily precludes pure capitalism.
-presuming the gov can't do anything competently is not a bad assumption, but, to exepect the free market to, with no gov at all, is imho a little naive.
-at least in theory, gov can increase efficiency of a market, cause markets hardly ever work efficiently. see stiglitz etc. but regardless of what's most efficient, though someties gov intereventio is most efficient, the most efifcient solution isn't always the most ethoical.

Edited December 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725347' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:43 AM']-i don't know how excplicity one doesn't think that laissez faire capitalism is at least sometimes not the ethical solution to a given problem, when the popes talk about 'justice' 'right' 'private property is subjected to opportunity to all' 'gov should do X'. are these popes being ignored? are they being said to be that 'rights' are to be fixed by charity? as i said, it doesn't seem like good will etc is properly the role to fix something when it's a 'right', and i don't see how people are responding to this point. the answer might be given by folks here, how the popes are ebing dealth with, i just don't see it very explicitly and so don't know how it's being answered.[/quote]

Laissez-faire capitalism sounds like an oxymoron to me. Capitalism requires government oversight to work efficiently. However, an inordinate level of oversight restricts capitalism, such as when GM is told they need to reach a certain average fuel efficiency to avoid paying federal fines.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725347' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:43 AM']-race to the bottom. look it up. walmart not giving its employees a whole lot could be said to be the price we pay for cheap stuff. were this situation required for society to operate effectively, maybe that's just the way it is. but i doubt it is. capitalism allows folks to compete to the detriment of everyone, cause that's where profits are. the flaw is in the theory. folks buy where it's cheap. they patronize there. they disregard what happens to the employees. now, they're not totally bad off, but another company could come in and do a whole lot worse to them. we'd be going down to the bottome of the barrrel.[/quote]

The labor of a Wal-Mart employee is not [i]worth[/i] a whole lot. If they want to earn a higher wage, they need to find more valuable work. Fact of the matter is, everybody can't live in nice three-bedroom houses with two cars and a big back yard.

As for this race to the bottom, if you did not grow up working 18 hour days in a textile mill, then you have no argument. Of course, there are kids elsewhere in the world growing up like that, and we are buying at lot the goods they produce. That's an injustice, but the problem is usually with corrupt governments that companies take advantage of for their private gain. Dispensing of capitalism won't stop corruption. Communist Russia taught that lesson quite well.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725347' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:43 AM']-healthcare etc you name it. insurance standards race up, peple can't afford to go to the doctor cause of all these folks artificially racing prices up with insurance etc. fundamentally flawed problems. there's solutions to these problems, but it's not with capitalism, pure capitalism. we don't just say anyone who wants to be a doctor can be. we don't keep it so limited either. we do it smartly, which necessarily precludes pure capitalism.[/quote]

Well, again, this is where we need government and other third party agencies that provide these standards so that you and I know our doctors are properly educated. This stuff isn't hurting our economy.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725347' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:43 AM']-presuming the gov can't do anything competently is not a bad assumption, but, to exepect the free market to, with no gov at all, is imho a little naive.[/quote]

The government does some things well and we should let them do those things. Police and fire, public infrastructure, welfare, unemployment programs, college financial aid, etc. are all services that our government provides better than private companies would. Of course, nearly all these services are provided with the assistance of private companies.

What I'm against is rebelling against the sins of excess capitalism by pushing for excess government, which only causes the same sins to be manifested at the hands of government instead of private companies. At least when we are dealing with capitalism's sins, we have recourse to government along with the competitive environment.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725347' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:43 AM']-at least in theory, gov can increase efficiency of a market, cause markets hardly ever work efficiently. see stiglitz etc. but regardless of what's most efficient, though someties gov intereventio is most efficient, the most efifcient solution isn't always the most ethoical.[/quote]

Agreed.

Okay, I pulled up distributism on wikipedia. It says capitalism only allows a few people to own productive property? That's silly. I mean, look in the Yellow Pages. You see thousands of privately owned businesses. I just called six or seven of them looking for a salvage amplifier.

I do like Chesterton's quote though: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." But I don't get the impression that distributism is much more than capitalism done rightly.

Edited December 11, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

As a follow up thought, if that is about all distibutism amounts too, then apparenly I am in favor of it

[dairygirl4u2c]

do you perceive youreslf to be ignoring the popes i quoted?
you probably in your mind have answered it, but i don't see the connection, necessarily, so.
it's not explicit enough for me.

pure capitalism, in an ideal theoretical world, could not be bad at all. it's the ultimate situation, hwen people have perfect knowledge and are rational. there's always an opportuinty. but, perfect knowledge is hard to attain. so captialism doesn't work as it ought, see stiglitz. that why government can improve the efficiency, and bridge the knowledge gap. a dude who can't afford a basic surgery even though he's done all he could, shold be able to, and only can't cause of a lack of knowledge. but it's unrealistic to epxect perfect knowledge.
everyone is entitled to opportunity.

i understand pointing out the flaws of communism shows how no capitalism is bad. just as long as it's understood no one is arguing capitalism is totally or mostly bad even. it's mostly good, just the edges are what is in dispute here.

like chesterton said, it could be said capitalism done right, an irony being for practical purposes gov can sometimes facilitate a more effeicient outcome despite it's not laissez faire. (powerline creation to use a simplistic example, or roads) or the gov can ensure people aren't exploited, forced to live in a box or not able to sustain themself when they have no other option, but the employer can afford to pay more, or whatever. or corruption. i mean, i don't dispute that wallmart employees can get better jobs, and all can't live high lives,,,, but, it's not always so simple.

Edited December 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725931' date='Dec 11 2008, 07:39 PM']do you perceive youreslf to be ignoring the popes i quoted?
you probably in your mind have answered it, but i don't see the connection, necessarily, so.
it's not explicit enough for me.[/quote]

I didn't catch the papal quotes. You referenced them in the first post of this thread, and if they are basically talking about ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met, then I'm obviously not disagreeing with that. I also don't see any problem with capitalism supporting that goal. A capitalist economy is much healthier without the extreme poverty that's so prevalent in the third world.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725931' date='Dec 11 2008, 07:39 PM']pure capitalism, in an ideal theoretical world, could not be bad at all. it's the ultimate situation, hwen people have perfect knowledge and are rational. there's always an opportuinty. but, perfect knowledge is hard to attain. so captialism doesn't work as it ought, see stiglitz.[/quote]

Who is stiglitz? I'm not even arguing for "pure capitalism." As I've said already, I believe in the role of government and charity, when those are restricted to roles that keep the forces of greed in check. At any rate, the reason I believe in capitalism is that it works in an imperfect and sinful world. Socialism, communism, etc. are designed for worlds that don't exist.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725931' date='Dec 11 2008, 07:39 PM']i understand pointing out the flaws of communism shows how no capitalism is bad. just as long as it's understood no one is arguing capitalism is totally or mostly bad even. it's mostly good, just the edges are what is in dispute here.[/quote]

Capitalism is just a system. It's the people who screw it up.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1725931' date='Dec 11 2008, 07:39 PM']like chesterton said, it could be said capitalism done right, an irony being for practical purposes gov can sometimes facilitate a more effeicient outcome despite it's not laissez faire.[/quote]

Unsure what the irony is. I've never argued against government's role in promoting the efficiency of markets.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i dont think we disagree with anything. that i see.
just getting to the clarifications stuff.
we might on specicif situations, but it sounds like we mostly agree on theory.

Edited December 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c