Thanks for the link. It is now on my YouTube watch list. I look forward to watching it one evening when things have settled down from the holidays.
“Rev. Sirico shows how a free economy is not only the best way to meet society’s material needs but also the surest protection of human dignity against government encroachment.”
- Society’s material needs should be met as the food quantity needed is here, yet starvation is rampant.
- Next human dignity was trampled upon in the first industrial revolution (a time of which the church had a greater percentage of adherents than today). The proposal of a near anarcho capitalism is problematic given history.
- “Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.” -https://getpocket.com/explore/item/if-you-re-so-smart-why-aren-t-you-rich-turns-out-it-s-just-chance?utm_source=pocket-newtab Please reread that and then discuss the Free Economy meeting societies material needs.
Context about Acton Institute:
“$857,776 received from Koch foundations, 1997-2017”
I do not feel I can say Acton Institute is the unbiased bearer of truth. On the contrary, I see Acton Institute upholds an ideology of whatever is politically convenient to the oligarchs of our era.
In the YouTube Comment Section:
“The Acton Institute should have picked a moderator who was actually interested in moderating.”
Which in turn, if so, would fall in line with those who oppose God/Jesus - would you say?
The problem is that you see a free economy as equivalent to near anarcho capitalism. I strongly suspect that Fr Sirico was not advocating early industrial age style of capitalism. I will watch the video later to confirm.
The organization has an interesting history.
I can still be humble in knowing that they might not eliminate all safety nets and regulations.
Seems like it takes about 12 minutes before it says that the rule of law is important and that anarchy does not give us a free market. I think you should listen to the debate before you criticize it,
Did something happen recently that caused Distributism to get a lot of attention? I feel like I’ve seen more about it in the last few weeks than I have in the preceding year.
Nobody will ever accept anything but Capitalism.
That’s quite the notion… Care to support it?
I just think Capitalism is too well ingrained in societies consciousness to think that it would easily give way to a new kind of economy or system of producing and distributing wealth. Sure, the poor, those who lose the most under capitalism, are certainly eager for something new. But those who gain the most from it, those who have power because of it, will not just give it up.
And the stability gained from it as a system is not too welcoming of new points of view that might undermine the security already obtained practically speaking. Society will crash and burn before we have distributism.
Isn’t that just common-sense?
There’s degrees… of Capitalism.
Some unbridled produce poverty amongst the masses…
There’s degrees of Marxism as well…
And no… I do not support anything re: Marx…
And no… Masses do not control the Force of Economies…
Those with extra-deep pockets do the actual controlling
I see it as another angle to move towards socialism (increased Govt control)
Every nation on Earth seeks to have as much Control as they shall muster
Not all government control is socialism, and distributism is not socialism; on the contrary, distributism advocates increased ownership of means of production rather than centralization of means of production.
I think we are comparing govt owned vs govt controlled.
Distributism as I’ve seen expressed will require significant govt regulation (control) to implement and regularly balance for fairness.
Whatever has been promised is not coming to pass…
The rich grow richer and those below grow poorer.
After all the Economic and Ideological talking the talk is said and done,
those in control . do not have humanity as their first order of business.
This is a misconception based on the faulty methodology of comparing income quartiles across time instead of the incomes of the actual people originating in those quartiles. The truth is that upper income individuals are more drastically more likely to be at the peak of their earning potential, while lower income individuals are much more likely to be the low point of their lifetime earning potential. When you actually follow actual individuals through time, the earnings gap actually decreases.
I"ll try to find an online reference when I’m feeling less lazy.
Well, if you ask me, our current form of few capitalists requires even more government regulation than distributism would.
Get rid of stock ownership and the like, and you will have a situation in which all businesses will be small and lose all the government regulation of the stock market.