Distributism

[Aloysius]

laws which define property as something which must be locally owned and truly possessed by its owner pretty effectively deny the possibility of the acquisition mindset, because one can only get into that acquisition mindset if it is possible to own merely by the power of transferring capital and thus be able to endlessly acquire more and more.

just as pretty much all the money in the world wouldn't make it possible for a Chinese Business man to buy the Statue of Liberty, all the money in the world shouldn't be enough for the Chinese business man who lives in China to buy a single acre of US soil or for an American business man to buy a single acre of Chinese soil... apply this principle down to local territory levels, and you effectively end the ability to amass large empires of property to make others dependent upon you, and the acquisition mentality cannot take hold because one cannot acquire in that way.

people who own things in one city have to work together with people that own things in another city to spread their business, they cannot just open up shop themselves in that city since they don't live there.

it's a limit on property ownership that I believe is perfectly consistent with the natural law: since man cannot be omnipresent, his property cannot be either.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Aloysius

[Socrates]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='05 January 2010 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1262670154' post='2030043']
My question on distributism: what's to prevent the acquisition mentality of modern corporatism?
[/quote]
Government force.
Worked great in the Soviet Union.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='05 January 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1262721186' post='2030297']
Government force.
Worked great in the Soviet Union.
[/quote]

would you say the U.S. is like the Soviet Union in using government force to prevent or punish identity theft?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' date='07 January 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1262875573' post='2031724']
would you say the U.S. is like the Soviet Union in using government force to prevent or punish identity theft?
[/quote]
?

Where did I say anything about punishing theft?
I was talking about government force to prevent legal, non-fraudulent, mutually-agreed-on transactions between buyer and seller.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='07 January 2010 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1262890062' post='2031828']
?

Where did I say anything about punishing theft?
I was talking about government force to prevent legal, non-fraudulent, mutually-agreed-on transactions between buyer and seller.
[/quote]

I didn't claim you said anything, I was only asking the question.

legal, non-fraudulent, mutually-agreed-on transactions between a buyer and a seller do not merit good in and of itself.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Didymus

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Winchester' date='05 January 2010 - 05:52 AM' timestamp='1262631134' post='2029527']
If we have no government, everyone will magically behave. Commercial entities will not gain and then abuse power, strong men will not subjugate the weak through force and everyone--everyone--will have a PS3.
[/quote]


When???

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' date='08 January 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1262928154' post='2032304']
I didn't claim you said anything, I was only asking the question.

legal, non-fraudulent, mutually-agreed-on transactions between a buyer and a seller do not merit good in and of itself.
[/quote]
Neither do the decisions of government bureaucrats.
The free market has a much better record of ensuring freedom and prosperity.

[Aloysius]

no matter what, it's up to "government bureaucrats" to determine what "fraud" is anyway. not all mutually agreed upon deals are legal, because some are considered to defraud people outside of the deal. so it is with imperialist property notions, where individuals are able to "own" things across the world to the exclusion of locals who are the rightful potential owners.

governments exist to enforce justice. unlike with Sternhauser, I should hope that you and I simply have a different definition of justice rather than a different definition of government. I want government to be small too, and local of course (I also want businesses to be small and local), but there are specific things I want it to do, one of which is to make and enforce laws against unjust forms of property "ownership" that defraud the proper right of local individuals to own local resources. you want government to make and enforce laws against what you define as "fraud" too, it's no different.

basically, take any argument about subsidiarity you would ever apply to government (that anything that can be done by the family be done by the family, anything that can't be done by the family be done by the local government, anything that can't be done by that, by the state government, anything that can't be done by the state government, by the federal government... leaving the federal government with a very small list of what it is able to do) and apply it to businesses and ownership.

the point of distributism is that subsidiarity is not just for the public sector, but also for the private sector.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Aloysius

[Ed Normile]

Capitalism is the only true form of economy that would be in line with freedom and the will of God. Socialism, Distributism, Communism, or whatever ism you want to end a term used for the forcible confiscation of lands , monies or equiptment of persons and give to others who have not achieved the ownership through their labours is inherently evil in nature and practise. Jesus commanded to give as to our ability to those less fortunate, he did not come and take from us to redistribute to another.

ed

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='17 January 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1263718748' post='2039041']
Capitalism is the only true form of economy that would be in line with freedom and the will of God. Socialism, Distributism, Communism, or whatever ism you want to end a term used for the forcible confiscation of lands , monies or equiptment of persons and give to others who have not achieved the ownership through their labours is inherently evil in nature and practise. Jesus commanded to give as to our ability to those less fortunate, he did not come and take from us to redistribute to another.

ed
[/quote]


Capitalism is too easy to abuse. It is too easy to take advantage of the worker, too easy to get rich off other people's work. Chesterton sums it up nicely when he says, "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." Capitalism in practice is like socialism in that it makes capital god.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='17 January 2010 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1263718748' post='2039041']
Capitalism is the only true form of economy that would be in line with freedom and the will of God. Socialism, Distributism, Communism, or whatever ism you want to end a term used for the forcible confiscation of lands , monies or equiptment of persons and give to others who have not achieved the ownership through their labours is inherently evil in nature and practise. Jesus commanded to give as to our ability to those less fortunate, he did not come and take from us to redistribute to another.

ed
[/quote]

Capitalism, is essentially a selfish form of market. The fact of Capitalism is to make a buck for one's own and it is only for the profit of those that produce the product. I mean, look at the commercials on T.V. it all reeks of capitalism and that doesn't seem very Christ-like, does it? Given the Capitalism we have today is quite far flung, but it still stands as a selfish institution.

I am not saying the Distrubitism is the way to go either here, but to some degree it is more closer to the example of Christ in my own perception since it calls us to be generous and giving.

These are just my thoughts.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='17 January 2010 - 03:59 AM' timestamp='1263718748' post='2039041']
Capitalism is the only true form of economy that would be in line with freedom and the will of God. Socialism, Distributism, Communism, or whatever ism you want to end a term used for the forcible confiscation of lands , monies or equiptment of persons and give to others who have not achieved the ownership through their labours is inherently evil in nature and practise. Jesus commanded to give as to our ability to those less fortunate, he did not come and take from us to redistribute to another.

ed
[/quote]

You seem to be limiting your knowledge of distributism to whatever you believe the title implies. There is not one idea of forcible land confiscation within the theory of distributism. It is drawn directly from Church teaching, not from a material model like capitalism and socialism.

Additionally, Capitalism itself is a system that denies one the fruits of their labors, by divorcing labor from ownership in the first place. How many Wal-mart stockholders have ever actually worked at Wal-mart?

[Didymus]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='17 January 2010 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1263732777' post='2039059']
I am not saying the Distrubitism is the way to go either here...
[/quote]

oh but it is..