FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Political theory and Catholic social teaching
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
I think the vagueness of Distributism is what appeals to me. It's not an economic ideology like all the others. See I think with an economic system based on morality should be the guiding force and not some abstraction of how markets need to work.

tim
One can have morality in capitalism, if it is as the Popes have defined capitalism, excepting the current understanding of what is actually not capitalism but a Marxist variant.

I am not comfortable with basing an economy on things which are vague. That doesn't work for religion and it won't work for an economy.
Jon, I can't see "capitalism" being okay with Rome. I see them okay with business and commerce and that men can pursue property. Capitalism is exactly what we have and it was never moral. Medici and his fellow bankers ruined Florence and it's a Renaissance mini-monetary failure with much of the same problems as today.
Capitalism is the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and all National Banks, and today the addition of the International Bank of Settlements, WTO, IMF, and World Bank.

Subsidiarity is not just for Governments, it's banks and businesses too. When money and power are concentrated at the top tyranny always follows. The USA fought to not have a National Bank and the bankers kept coming back with another attempt to control the money, and this time their failure is epic.

tim
What you have described isn't capitalism, though. It's an oligarchy of non-production and globalism.

What *is* distributism? What ills does it answer systemically? Where does it trump capitalism?

One can easily corrupt distributism. In fact, any implementation of what little I know of it would tend to the same dreadful condition it seeks to answer.

(07-02-2013, 01:57 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]I side with Ferrara over Woods in that debate. His arguments (and that of Distributist folks) just win in the long run. Taken to the logical end, the Libertarian doctrines are, well, liberal...hence the name. Born of freemasonry and of the protestant revolt and of usury and of the so called enlightenment.

That being said, libertarianism is better than what we have now. It would reset the clock, so to speak, and in a few decades we would be right back to this point again.

And that being said....while I tend to side with the distributist approach, I think ain't nothin gonna work this side of a chastisement...or the consecration of Russia in accord with Heaven's request. Whichever comes first.

The Distributist Review - http://distributistreview.com/mag/ - has interesting articles from that economic perspective.

Distributists don't make any cogent economic arguments though.  When you try to piece their ideas together into a coherent system, all that results is the welfare state we have today. 
(07-02-2013, 02:06 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]Peter II - the question is not IF we have a government or IF we have a King, it's whether we have a government that recognizes Christ as King, or denies it. Ya gotta serve someone, as the saying goes. Goes for nations as well as individuals. Social Reign of Christ the King (See Quas Primus...and Libertas too on the encyclicals page).

To recognize Christ the King, one must follow His commandments.  Every form of government today breaks the 7th and 10th commandments by extorting private property. 
Capitalism is an oligarchy. It's Liberalism for real. There is no way in a really free market to stop the congregation of all wealth at the top.

tim
Any system, in some manner, has rich, middle and poor. Bridging the gap can really only be done by inhibiting the rich, and that doesn't really do anything for the poor in actuality.
I asked 3 questions and received 0 answers.

(07-02-2013, 07:39 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Capitalism is an oligarchy. It's Liberalism for real. There is no way in a really free market to stop the congregation of all wealth at the top.

tim


Wealth is naturally acquired and spread through competition which can ONLY occur in a free market.  Whoever gets to the "top" deserves to be there because they provide the most benefit to society. 
(07-02-2013, 10:24 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-02-2013, 07:39 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Capitalism is an oligarchy. It's Liberalism for real. There is no way in a really free market to stop the congregation of all wealth at the top.

tim


Wealth is naturally acquired and spread through competition which can ONLY occur in a free market.  Whoever gets to the "top" deserves to be there because they provide the most benefit to society. 
This.
Not to mention that most the of the wealthy hate free market competition, because they risk losing their money. Even the rich are not guaranteed that their businesses will succeed forever.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6