Is Distributism utopian?

[Warrenton]

Originally Posted by carn

You equate what people do under capitalism with what capitalism is.

Check out Matthew 7;18, if you believe in such things.

[Cho]

Excellent scripture, so is 1 Samuel 8. Yes, Distributism is utopian and no, claiming it isn't is not proof it isn't. A state will still be in charge of the distributing and collecting taxes. The same flawed humans who commies claim turn into greedy monsters when allowed economic liberty and to own property do not become saints when given the absolute power of the state over other men. They will use that power to enslave. Reality is not state vs more state, it is state vs liberty of the individual. Any scheme forced on everyone at gunpoint for "the greater good" will bring misery, Lord save us from planners and do-gooders. The only system that is moral (does not depend on theft, aggression, murder) is capitalism (PRIVATE ownership- including CONTROL- of the means of economic production and distribution) and the free market. Resources are allocated according to ability, opportunities are created for others by entrepreneurs, capital is created by saving, and saving is encouraged by sound money. There is no state providing gatekeeping for entrenched interests and companies "too big to fail". The greatest rise in the standard of living of people was before the schemes and utopian communist societies were forced on people. Ludwig Von Mises "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" (free for download at Mises.org) is an excellent explanation of the two philosophies.

[carn]

Originally Posted by Warrenton

Check out Matthew 7;18, if you believe in such things.

And you think the quote applies to large scale organizations like states verbatim?

Then all states and all potential political and economic systems are per definition evil, because the moment you apply equal or more or less equal laws to 10 million people and charge human manned courts and police forces with the enforcement for at least a few people the laws and police actions will have unjust results (e.g. imprisonement of innocent, errors in use of police force). Then accroding to your argument the system must be bad. But changing it, it will still be bad, because other people will suffer (e.g. more crime victims because too much restrain among police). Still bad, again change. And so on.

And you have not answered the question, why it is immoral to take property only when there is just reason and a legal basis.

Besides through 2000 years church history i am absolutely certain everybody will find at least one bad event, that was to a large part caused by church structures. Then using your approach one would have to assume the church is a bad tree.

And example might be the abuse scandal. A lot of people seem to assume that common disciplinary reactions - putting a suspect priest elsewhere in charge - aidede in further abuse. If those people - and there are bishops among those - were right the church would be a bad tree. I personally see Malleus Maleficarum as a bad fruit, not caused with intent by the church, but nonetheless something that developed inside the church.
Besides even Pope John Paul II said that some bad things happened in church history.

The only way to avoid calling the church a bad tree is not to look at everything which some of its members did, but to look at her principles and those are without bad fruit.

The same i apply to state or economic setups. Even a perfect system would lead to injustice. By looking only at the actions of people living under the rules and condeming a system if one acts wrong, we would discard all good trees, as always some will act wrong.

Therefore the basics of a system are decisive, just as with church not the actions of some bishops or popes are decisive, but what the church teaches.

And i cannot see the evil in a system that attempts not to trespass on private property.

[St Francis]

It's kinda hard to argue with what you are saying because you make some good arguments for distributism.

Originally Posted by Cho

Excellent scripture, so is 1 Samuel 8. Yes, Distributism is utopian and no, claiming it isn't is not proof it isn't. A state will still be in charge of the distributing and collecting taxes. The same flawed humans who commies claim turn into greedy monsters when allowed economic liberty and to own property do not become saints when given the absolute power of the state over other men. They will use that power to enslave. Reality is not state vs more state, it is state vs liberty of the individual. Any scheme forced on everyone at gunpoint for "the greater good" will bring misery, Lord save us from planners and do-gooders. The only system that is moral (does not depend on theft, aggression, murder) is capitalism (PRIVATE ownership- including CONTROL- of the means of economic production and distribution) and the free market. Resources are allocated according to ability, opportunities are created for others by entrepreneurs, capital is created by saving, and saving is encouraged by sound money. There is no state providing gatekeeping for entrenched interests and companies "too big to fail". The greatest rise in the standard of living of people was before the schemes and utopian communist societies were forced on people. Ludwig Von Mises "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" (free for download at Mises.org) is an excellent explanation of the two philosophies.

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by Cho

Excellent scripture, so is 1 Samuel 8. Yes, Distributism is utopian and no, claiming it isn't is not proof it isn't. A state will still be in charge of the distributing and collecting taxes. The same flawed humans who commies claim turn into greedy monsters when allowed economic liberty and to own property do not become saints when given the absolute power of the state over other men. They will use that power to enslave. Reality is not state vs more state, it is state vs liberty of the individual. Any scheme forced on everyone at gunpoint for "the greater good" will bring misery, Lord save us from planners and do-gooders. The only system that is moral (does not depend on theft, aggression, murder) is capitalism (PRIVATE ownership- including CONTROL- of the means of economic production and distribution) and the free market. Resources are allocated according to ability, opportunities are created for others by entrepreneurs, capital is created by saving, and saving is encouraged by sound money. There is no state providing gatekeeping for entrenched interests and companies "too big to fail". The greatest rise in the standard of living of people was before the schemes and utopian communist societies were forced on people. Ludwig Von Mises "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" (free for download at Mises.org) is an excellent explanation of the two philosophies.

Ah!!!you are speaking to my heart brother....don't forget Bastiat, or Tom Woods, or Hayak.....!!!!..... I became a Catholic a few years ago after a difficult hard decision-making process....I could not wait to share The Faith with my Baptist brothers after I made the plunge..... I find I need (myself) evangelizing to just as much as before but what surprises me my fellow Catholics buy into this immoral socialism..... you can call it distributism you can call it liberalism (they stole the name from us) no matter it is stealing..... Oh and GK Cheston's writing had a lot to do with my move; an dear lord he is/ was a proponent of this method of stealing.... well its nice to know GK is not God.

[Cho]

I am also a convert, love Woods, Tucker, Rockwell. Chesterton was awesome. I don't know how anyone can read "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" and not become at least believers, if not Catholic. C.S. Lewis probably explained Catholicism the most effectively, a sort of Chesterton-lite. Had I realized the degree to which Catholicism has been infiltrated by communists I am not sure I would have converted. It is the one True Faith, but to voluntarily join a collective and be put in a position of tacitly supporting communism is SO depressing. The economic ignorance is astounding. Chesterton can be forgiven his utopianism, he hung out with G.B.Shaw and Fabianism was full of promise at that time. We now know that redistribution of wealth and economic planning does not work. Theft is theft, it doesn’t become righteous when state agents do it “for the greater good”. Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution rather than state owned (and control is the essence of ownership), although communists of varying degrees try to redefine it as todays corporate state-mercantilism. Todays economic issues are the direct result of communist policies, NOT market failures. And I agree with Mises’ argument that there is no real difference between socialism and communism. State classes “distributing” property as they see fit, no matter according to what formula, who proposes it or how small a parcel, is socialism. At any rate, it’s nice to see a rational thinker here. 2+2 does not equal 5 even if Distributionists proclaim it. As the laws of physics cannot be denied, so do economic laws exist and violating them with utopian schemes to end poverty will bring poverty

[Cho]

Originally Posted by St Francis

It's kinda hard to argue with what you are saying because you make some good arguments for distributism.

Such as???

[St Francis]

Originally Posted by David Castlen

Ah!!!you are speaking to my heart brother....don't forget Bastiat, or Tom Woods, or Hayak.....!!!!..... I became a Catholic a few years ago after a difficult hard decision-making process....I could not wait to share The Faith with my Baptist brothers after I made the plunge..... I find I need (myself) evangelizing to just as much as before but what surprises me my fellow Catholics buy into this immoral socialism..... you can call it distributism you can call it liberalism (they stole the name from us) no matter it is stealing..... Oh and GK Cheston's writing had a lot to do with my move; an dear lord he is/ was a proponent of this method of stealing.... well its nice to know GK is not God.

Distributism is *nothing like* socialism, and has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. And what do you think taking from our children and grandchildren and fiving it to Golsman Sachs, et al, is? That is the corporo-government form that "capitalism" has morphed into: corporate socialism.

The thing about distributism is that businesses do not become too big to fail. The responsibility does not become so diffused that morality is eradicated by economic considerations. Power does not become so concentrated that the lists of government experts, lobbyists, and corporate board members and executives all look alike over time.

What I see going on now is no advertisement for capitalism on a large scale. Distributism is capitalism on a human scale.

[Warrenton]

Originally Posted by carn

And you think the quote applies to large scale organizations like states verbatim?

Then all states and all potential political and economic systems are per definition evil, because the moment you apply equal or more or less equal laws to 10 million people and charge human manned courts and police forces with the enforcement for at least a few people the laws and police actions will have unjust results (e.g. imprisonement of innocent, errors in use of police force). Then accroding to your argument the system must be bad. But changing it, it will still be bad, because other people will suffer (e.g. more crime victims because too much restrain among police). Still bad, again change. And so on.

And you have not answered the question, why it is immoral to take property only when there is just reason and a legal basis.

Besides through 2000 years church history i am absolutely certain everybody will find at least one bad event, that was to a large part caused by church structures. Then using your approach one would have to assume the church is a bad tree.

And example might be the abuse scandal. A lot of people seem to assume that common disciplinary reactions - putting a suspect priest elsewhere in charge - aidede in further abuse. If those people - and there are bishops among those - were right the church would be a bad tree. I personally see Malleus Maleficarum as a bad fruit, not caused with intent by the church, but nonetheless something that developed inside the church.
Besides even Pope John Paul II said that some bad things happened in church history.

The only way to avoid calling the church a bad tree is not to look at everything which some of its members did, but to look at her principles and those are without bad fruit.

The same i apply to state or economic setups. Even a perfect system would lead to injustice. By looking only at the actions of people living under the rules and condeming a system if one acts wrong, we would discard all good trees, as always some will act wrong.

Therefore the basics of a system are decisive, just as with church not the actions of some bishops or popes are decisive, but what the church teaches.

And i cannot see the evil in a system that attempts not to trespass on private property.

Quite a lengthy reply to seven words of scripture, my friend.

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by Cho

I am also a convert, love Woods, Tucker, Rockwell. Chesterton was awesome. I don't know how anyone can read "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" and not become at least believers, if not Catholic. C.S. Lewis probably explained Catholicism the most effectively, a sort of Chesterton-lite. Had I realized the degree to which Catholicism has been infiltrated by communists I am not sure I would have converted. It is the one True Faith, but to voluntarily join a collective and be put in a position of tacitly supporting communism is SO depressing. The economic ignorance is astounding. Chesterton can be forgiven his utopianism, he hung out with G.B.Shaw and Fabianism was full of promise at that time. We now know that redistribution of wealth and economic planning does not work. Theft is theft, it doesn’t become righteous when state agents do it “for the greater good”. Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution rather than state owned (and control is the essence of ownership), although communists of varying degrees try to redefine it as todays corporate state-mercantilism. Todays economic issues are the direct result of communist policies, NOT market failures. And I agree with Mises’ argument that there is no real difference between socialism and communism. State classes “distributing” property as they see fit, no matter according to what formula, who proposes it or how small a parcel, is socialism. At any rate, it’s nice to see a rational thinker here. 2+2 does not equal 5 even if Distributionists proclaim it. As the laws of physics cannot be denied, so do economic laws exist and violating them with utopian schemes to end poverty will bring poverty

Hail hail!!!!!

I have always thought of putting a club together of Libratarian Catholics. I was considering
naming it The Bastiat Society. Its purpose would be primarily to educate and evangialize those who hold on the he sin of socialism. You - it appears - would be a great contributor.

I am amazed that on this sight, Catholic Answers, how I get so very many response of people who are opposed to capitalism and buy into this sin of socialism changing its name like all good sophist to things like Distributism, Charity. They have stolen our right and obligation to be a light to the world. If we CAtholics did the public charity our works would bring millions in and back to the Faith. Will God bless you. My email is dcastlen50@hotmail.com if you are interested in pursueing The Bastiat Society idea.

[St Francis]

Have you all even read this thread? Distributism is NOT socialistic!!!! Distributism is more like the north in US before the Industrial Revolution. It is **against ** socialism and all that.

And yes, it is also against out-of-control corporations!

[David Castlen]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Distributism is *nothing like* socialism,

Distributism IS socialism - it is the government making business decisions and deciding the winners and loosers... The only way it can work is if the leaders are gods and all of the society are angles. it is terrible

and has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. And what do you think taking from our children and grandchildren and fiving it to Golsman Sachs, et al, is?

I am curious, what do you think I think? I can not believe you think a libertarian would ever approve of such a thing. I denounce it. It is NOT capitlism. It smells like distributism to me.

That is the corporo-government form that "capitalism" has morphed into: corporate socialism.

You are being a sophist at the most; you mix meanings. Capitalism says no government in business. You sight a socialist event and you call it capitalism. What you fail to see is a government that sold us a program and called it something that it was not. An excellent selling tool - a lie.


The thing about distributism is that businesses do not become too big to fail.

What is TOO big; how do you know something is too big? And if you do know what is too big, how do you propose to settle the problem? Are you going to one of those gods in DC or one of their fine agencies to solve what is too big? Again, what is too big?

The responsibility does not become so diffused that morality is eradicated by economic considerations.

This is a confusing sentence: "There is a responsibility that can be so diffused"
Diffused: spread out, a lot of people participating in the responsiblity...?
And it appears you are saying that morality will be eradicated if responsiblity is SO diffused......

....?????morality is (can be) eradicated by economic considerations.......

I do not follow you logic????

Power does not become so concentrated that the lists of government experts, lobbyists, and corporate board members and executives all look alike over time.

You again, are not clear; i am quessing you are saying that because of capitalism let go (Oh I wish) free it will result in a lot of big companies running everything and controlling the government..... But again, you are not clear...

Tom Woods in his extensive study found that the more the government tries to reduce the size of companies the more those companies grow and their net profits become great. The government will set situations up where the ability to enter the market for new companies becomes prohibitive. An excellent example of this is the auto industry. I knwo some guys that had more than enought to start a auto manufacturing company. They said after studying the requirments to get in (EPA, Unions, Taxes, Safety Reqs. etc etc) they determined it would be next to impossible to make it work

What I see going on now is no advertisement for capitalism on a large scale. Distributism is capitalism on a human scale.

Would you please elaborate? I do not understand how when the government gets into something, the government makes the organization less government. A dog can not be a dog and not a dog at the same time.

Perhaps I do not know what this Distributism is. I thought I had read and understood it. Can you define it.

The great lion, named Distributist, of the business world who controlled all the animals and transactions got all the animals together at a great banquet hall: the lions, the fish, the birds, the cats, the deers, the pigs etc. With great fanfare and a holy atmosphere, he made a proclamation, "From now on we will not eat each other." To this the rabbit annouced his approval of this loving and wise plan and after expressing his excitement of it he got up from the table as fast as he could and ran for his life

[St Francis]

I'm sorry, my last replies came out a lot crankier than I had intended! I guess if I am too busy to edit that I'm too busy to post, so I'm gonna take a bit of time off.

[carn]

Originally Posted by Warrenton

Quite a lengthy reply to seven words of scripture, my friend.

Quite an intelectual empty reply as to how those seven words have to be understood.

Why hang around a catholic forum, when you believe that any tree that produces at least one single bad fruit is a bad tree?

The church produced at least one bad fruit.

[Cho]

Originally Posted by St Francis

Distributism is *nothing like* socialism, and has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. And what do you think taking from our children and grandchildren and fiving it to Golsman Sachs, et al, is? That is the corporo-government form that "capitalism" has morphed into: corporate socialism.

The thing about distributism is that businesses do not become too big to fail. The responsibility does not become so diffused that morality is eradicated by economic considerations. Power does not become so concentrated that the lists of government experts, lobbyists, and corporate board members and executives all look alike over time.

What I see going on now is no advertisement for capitalism on a large scale. Distributism is capitalism on a human scale.

So who distributes the property to see that it is widely distributed in small holdings? How is this not wealth redistribution?

???Where have I posted in support of state bailouts of their cronies (Goldman Sachs, etc)?? That is not private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution, that is the state claiming ultimate ownership of alll and redistributing it to their cronies...socialism. The powerless Progressives (as distinguished from the Obammunists) simply want THEIR cronies on the receiving end (feminists, homosexuals, Marxist teachers), it's the same socialism/communism.
The bigness of business is not the problem, the problem is the state creating regs that enslave and subject the rest of us to them distorting the market and protecting them from competition, "sanitation" laws preventing the farmer from selling raw milk, unprocessed or "inspected" foods depriving him economic access and the public of healthy food on the pretext of "public safety". Distributism would still put economic power in the state that will inevitably corrupt and cronies would receive special treatment, that is the nature of man. Once allowed a monopoly on aggression (that IS the state) there is no way to stop them as we currently see, the Constitutional limits on government are worthless and ignored. You are blaming business for playing the game that the state has set up. The state has the power, the monopoly on aggression and they SELL it to the highest bidders ("lobbyists"). It is a legalized mafia...except even the mafia realizes you have to make a living and do not require you to love them. What you see going on now is not capitalism, although statists of various stripes are doing their darndest to redefine it as such and to eradicate the idea of private property from Western thought.