Political theory and Catholic social teaching
#31
(07-02-2013, 11:04 PM)Nicolaus Wrote:
(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.

Ah but they use their wealth to frame the laws and kill their competition. Greed always beats altruism in this Allen world. Crony capitalism is the natural progression of capitalism. And communism follows as the middle.class are all driven down to lower proletariat class and eventually demand their revolution. Its all by design.

Solution: Quas Primus, alot of rosaries and the propers consecration of Russia.
Reply
#32
(07-02-2013, 11:20 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(07-02-2013, 11:04 PM)Nicolaus Wrote:
(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.

Ah but they use their wealth to frame the laws and kill their competition. Greed always beats altruism in this Allen world. Crony capitalism is the natural progression of capitalism. And communism follows as the middle.class are all driven down to lower proletariat class and eventually demand their revolution. Its all by design.

Solution: Quas Primus, alot of rosaries and the propers consecration of Russia.
You see friend, but that's not the free market at all. What you speak of is Mercantilism or Fascism. The problem there is a government problem not a market problem.
Reply
#33
(07-03-2013, 12:14 AM)Nicolaus Wrote:
(07-02-2013, 11:20 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(07-02-2013, 11:04 PM)Nicolaus Wrote:
(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.

Ah but they use their wealth to frame the laws and kill their competition. Greed always beats altruism in this Allen world. Crony capitalism is the natural progression of capitalism. And communism follows as the middle.class are all driven down to lower proletariat class and eventually demand their revolution. Its all by design.

Solution: Quas Primus, alot of rosaries and the propers consecration of Russia.
You see friend, but that's not the free market at all. What you speak of is Mercantilism or Fascism. The problem there is a government problem not a market problem.

Markets don't keep themselves free. Whatever structures/laws/rules put into place to "make" a free market will inevitably be bought and and eventually owned/manipulated by the big guys that rise to the top. Sorry man. Just they way it is.
Reply
#34
And yet, no answer is given on how to substantiate the distributist claims of utopia.

Reply
#35
(07-03-2013, 01:57 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: And yet, no answer is given on how to substantiate the distributist claims of utopia.
Jon, you will not get one. The reality is that a system like distributism would take a huge Government to FORCE people to follow through with the certain regulations that would need to be enforced. I say again that Tom Woods has a great book on this subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Distributism-ebook/dp/B0082EL802/ref=sr_1_6?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1372856648&sr=1-6&keywords=thomas+woods
Reply
#36
(07-03-2013, 01:57 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: And yet, no answer is given on how to substantiate the distributist claims of utopia.

I don't think a wide distribution of private property is utopian, but I'll admit I don't know how to get there from here. It's gonna take the global crash or some widespread catastrophe to bring anything about.

For me, its just alot of the ideals I hear about from Distributist writers appeals to my common sense as the way things "ought'' to be. Perhaps that is utopian. Who knows. But if so, Libertarian ideals could be accused of the same.

I think alot of the two camps ideals overlap, but you'd never know it with all the venom spewed between them.
Reply
#37
(07-03-2013, 01:00 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(07-03-2013, 01:57 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: And yet, no answer is given on how to substantiate the distributist claims of utopia.

I don't think a wide distribution of private property is utopian, but I'll admit I don't know how to get there from here. It's gonna take the global crash or some widespread catastrophe to bring anything about.

For me, its just alot of the ideals I hear about from Distributist writers appeals to my common sense as the way things "ought'' to be. Perhaps that is utopian. Who knows. But if so, Libertarian ideals could be accused of the same.

I think alot of the two camps ideals overlap, but you'd never know it with all the venom spewed between them.
Dustinsdad, I agree with you here. Where I don't agree is the initiation of force it would take to put into place a distributists economy. However, in a libertarian society, you would be free to start your own community and do with it what you please, just as long as you don't force anything on anyone. I believe that persuasion is the way to go not coercion.
Reply
#38
I don't know anyone that says Distributism will bring Utopia. All Utopian systems are directly against God. They deny original sin, the need for Redemption, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Their is no way to fix all of our problems by wise men because we are fallen. That said I do not understand how many pro-capitalists and pro-libertarians can call it socialism. There is "big book of distributism" which lays out exactly how it should work. All it puts forth is some idea that the working men at the bottom has the ability to acquire his own property. That is what is in the Constitution, but the one word is changed. The phrase originally was life, liberty, and pursuit of property, not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Subsidiarity is the answer. When the size of banks, companies, cartels, businesses, or any commerce is limited in size, and privately owned National Banks are outlawed distributism will follow.

tim
Reply
#39
Subsidiary is the answer, and the way to reach it is to PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING. 
Reply
#40
i just read this essay from Dr. Raphael Waters, The Function of Civil Society:
http://www.aquinasphilosophy.com/page11/...unc-cv.htm . Just throwing the link up for the OP, as it is giving a good Thomistic description of what government should and should not be doing.

DD

The Function of Civil Authority


By Raphael Waters, Ph.D.

Editor’s Note: The eminent Thomistic Philosphoer, Dr. Raphael Waters, founder of the Aquinas School of Philosophy, presents a much-needed basis for understanding what is truly the function of civil authority.

Governments around the world are venturing into state absolutism, socialism, statism, totalitarianism, Communism, Fascism or whatever you like to call it. They apparently do not know that, in trying to take over several social functions and ownership or partial ownership of productive enterprises, they are offending the following arguments which determine the function of the state:

It is not the function of a government to conduct the following:

• give pensions (e.g. social security);
• give food stamps;
• give health care;
• own instruments of business, transportation, etc. except public goods to aid its governance of common goods
• conduct a public education system; if it finds it necessary to establish public schools.

If a government finds itself in the position of having to establish a school system, or give health care or establish some other community aid, it should be moving towards divesting itself of the system right from the start. 

It certainly is not the function of a government to make war on its own citizens, for example, by abortion, euthanasia and so on. Indeed it has a grave obligation to preserve and protect its subjects, the future of the extremely young and the frailty and wisdom of the elderly.

It is the function of a government:

a) To govern, that is, to see that the citizens are able to obtain these things for themselves. 

b) The practical principle of reason governing civil authority is this: The end is principle in practical matters. But what is the end of any society? It is the common good. Government is, above all, guardian of the common good.

c) Moreover, according to the principle of subsidiarity, what can be done by the lower ought not to be done by the higher. In other words, if the people can perform some function, the government ought not do it.

The common good consists of immaterial goods in society, e.g. civic friendship, peace, order, freedom, justice, a well informed public opinion, love of the law, love of the heritage of the nation, love of its cultural goods (those goods which are the object of the speculative intellect), love of the health and welfare of the citizens, and a healthy religious state in the nation. The common good of civil society is the following: What the citizens have in common, not what belongs to them as private goods.

The state should concern itself with what we have in common—the common good, not private goods. Note that the common good is not the sum of private goods. For example, the public funds are not the same as the sum of the private funds and the public health, the function of government, is not the sum of private healths.

The government does not obtain the common good; the people by cooperative effort obtain those goods. The legislators govern the people by watching over the nation and guiding the people so that all can share in these things that are perfectly divisible. Each of us by contributing towards the CG gets more out of it; yet by anyone sharing in it causes us not to lose anything since being non-material goods, they are perfectly divisible. 

However, in an emergency, certainly a government should help the needy but also urging the rest of us to help them. But this should not lead to the establishment of a permanent national health scheme, educational system and so on. People are easily fooled by the economic mess in which we live as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. They think in terms of jobs, working for a master, but not realizing that citizens should be owners of their homes and owners of the means of production—or, at least, shareholders in the means of production, not wage slaves. 

The government should govern, that is, it should guide the community towards the common goods. This is done by means of informing the citizenry, that is, its function is an educative function.

We can determine the function of the legislature by the natural moral law which is discovered by means of an adequate understanding of human nature and, therefore, the nature of civil society and the function of government. What is proper to civil society and its government is determined by means of its end, which is the good we all have in common, the common good.

We must reject socialism as the following principles show:

1) The function of a government is to govern. That is, to shepherd society’s move towards the common good.
2) What can be done by the lower ought not be done by the higher (principle of subsidiarity);
3) A step towards dependence is a step away from independence (freedom).

It is quiet obvious that many governments have thrust socialism upon their citizens with many manipulations of the body economic and granting of so-called stimulus payments. Therefore, steps have been taken contrary to the welfare of the citizenry.

---
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)