Political theory and Catholic social teaching
#41
(06-26-2013, 11:49 AM)Tim Wrote: When the NWO is complete, you'll have those Monarchs and Aristocrats, they're the Dynastic Families. We'll be ruled as in days of old by fiat, and we'll work and shut up or be killed.

tim

I hope you're joking.

The New World Order is an oligarchy of industrialists and bankers who view the rest of humanity as either a disease or a resource to be exploited.  The Catholic monarchies of Christendom weren't perfect, but they were at least accountable to the Church.

The New World Order is Anti-Christendom, Tim.  It won't look ANYTHING like Christendom, the Catholic monarchies or the feudal system we once had (which was actually a necessary system for preserving western civilization in a time where hordes of barbarians were pouring into Europe).

The Alex Jones crowd doesn't understand what Christendom and feudalism were actually about, so when they accuse the New World Order of being a "neo-feudal" system, they're showing the world just how little they know about history or the intentions of the people living in and ruling in those times.

Reply
#42
(07-02-2013, 06:40 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: 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.

Problem: if you "Catholicize" capitalism... it's not capitalism anymore. 

Problem: if you corrupt distributism, it's not distrubutism anymore.
Reply
#43
I recommend reading Rerum Novarum as a start.
Reply
#44
One cannot religionize an economic theory, model, system, but moralize it. Economies do not have a religion and are subject only to morals and the morality of their adherents. Certain economic theories are inherently immoral. Capitalism can work, and does, when people engage it morally. Conversely, nothing is a backstop to immorality creeping into a society attempting distributism, yet to be defined as anything other than time-capsule capitalism; nor is its implementation without committing evil to achieve the theoretical good established, nor is there a guarantee that, as reality dictates, certain individuals won't win out in success. Based on what little I can piece together, distributism is nothing more than glass-ceiling capitalism in theory, and never really tried in actuality.

The very notion of everyone having their own thing stabs at the heart of the reason proposed to implement it in the first place! Plumber has own tools (they often do). How do they gain their own tools, but by first being subject to the property of another?

Rerum Novarum can just as easily lend support to Capitalism as implemented by a moral society.

This conversation is useless. Fix the moral problem before fantasizing about economic theories, as an immoral society will fail no matter the economic model in place. This is, of course, impossible. Distributism remains a fantasy. Capitalism remains a fantasy brought to life.

I cannot lend support to the idea akin to let's get married until how we are to pay for the baby is worked out first.
Reply
#45
The monarchs if and when the NWO is in place will not be the CEO's of Fortune 25, nor the billionaire hedge fund guys, not even the pyramid scheme guys, they are much higher up the food chain, they're the Dynastic Families which own these and the Banks including the National Banks. Follow the money.

tim
Reply
#46
(07-04-2013, 12:42 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: One cannot religionize an economic theory, model, system, but moralize it. Economies do not have a religion and are subject only to morals and the morality of their adherents. Certain economic theories are inherently immoral. Capitalism can work, and does, when people engage it morally. Conversely, nothing is a backstop to immorality creeping into a society attempting distributism, yet to be defined as anything other than time-capsule capitalism; nor is its implementation without committing evil to achieve the theoretical good established, nor is there a guarantee that, as reality dictates, certain individuals won't win out in success. Based on what little I can piece together, distributism is nothing more than glass-ceiling capitalism in theory, and never really tried in actuality.

The very notion of everyone having their own thing stabs at the heart of the reason proposed to implement it in the first place! Plumber has own tools (they often do). How do they gain their own tools, but by first being subject to the property of another?

Rerum Novarum can just as easily lend support to Capitalism as implemented by a moral society.

This conversation is useless. Fix the moral problem before fantasizing about economic theories, as an immoral society will fail no matter the economic model in place. This is, of course, impossible. Distributism remains a fantasy. Capitalism remains a fantasy brought to life.

I cannot lend support to the idea akin to let's get married until how we are to pay for the baby is worked out first.

All interesting. I would post some questions to ponder. What is it that prevents or makes extremely difficult the plumber (one who has been at it for years, developed expertise, etc) from running his own business, or being forced to be an employee at Roto-rooter (where he's forced to work on Sunday's, etc.)?
Or I think the question works better perhaps with the pharmacist forced to be an employee at walgreens rather than open his own corner drug store.

And when I say prevented, I don't mean to say its impossible, just that certain systems can work against this and make it darn near impossible for alot of people...in this day, the majority.

Some of those things libertarians and distributists would agree on...overbearing taxes and regulations, etc. Some things distributists would point out the libertarians would attack.

Briefly touching on a few just to throw em out there for consideration....

1.) The "big guy'' has a huge advantage in regards to unlimited ability to advertise (honestly or not), to squash the little guy with economies of scale (if ya have a hundred stores, and little guy opens a corner store, the big guy can easily open a store next door for no there reason than to drive the little guy out of business with the tools at the big guys service).

This is what has happened in this country over and over again. From restaurant's killed by McDonalds, corner drug stores killed by walgreens, hardware stores killed by the big boys, and on and on.

I think laws could be put in place to lessen some of this that absolutely does not mean stealing the big guys property. Libertarians would oppose this in principal, I've heard the arguments. I get it, but am not convinced. The totally free market is not always right and society suffers from it often. I get the logic of the arguments, but in reality, it just plain don't work. The peoples become a nation of wage slaves. Its not good or ideal.

Another thing that I understand "logically'' but despise is the whole credit/interest/usury system as it applies to poor folk. I've despised this since I learned of it as a wee lad. That is that poor folks pay more to borrow money than rich folks. I get it (higher risk and what not), but its still nuts. Poor family gets late on something, okay, now your payments are higher. Yeah...its logical I suppose...and insane.

The whole credit score system in this country is a tool of the elites to keep the masses jumping through the hoops.

That my thoughts here may be influenced by my being a po'folk myself is admitted ;)

That's all. Over and out.
Reply
#47
Not everyone wants to own his own business. There are pros and cons to owning your own business; you are basically "all-in" when you own vs. being an employee. An employee can get off work, go home, and forget about it until the next morning. However, a business has to always be on top of things just to make sure all goes well. Not mention the stress of hiring and firing.
Reply
#48
More so, not everyone CAN own his own business. Some guys are great plumbers, carpenters, etc., but have no business in business. Some people just ain't cut out. Business is about more than capability or good product.

Moreover, businesses like McDonald's, Walgreens, etc. did not start out as mega-corporations. They were the result of a person opening a business in a town, being successful, and progressing. In other words, the heart of distributism's attack is based on the nateual progression of the very people, in history, they claim to help in the future. It's "be average, or a little below" capitalism, at best.

What if someone takes Chesterton's "3 acres and a cow", finds they are good at it, and buys the joining 3 acres and cow when the neighbor decides to go white-collar, or he dies and son became a lawyer, accountant, etc.? Then he decides to sell his extra milk and crops to the white-collars? A few generations go by and you have a natural progression of success which is then despised.

Where do you draw the line? Where do you say, "Ah! You're too successful!" I'm blatantly uncomfortable with such a notion and find in it an undercurrent of jealousy, covetousness.

Now what of the one who took the risk and started a business, should he not reap the rewards of his risk? In fact, all reap the rewards for he provides a product at a good cost and with service. He stands to lose the most as well.

Should we also force all women to cover their faces so the pretty cannot advertise? Should we force the thinkers to wear helmets that randomly scream noise into their ears, and force the writers to use keyboards whose letters shift every 6 seconds, thus inhibiting them?

What if the plumber has no desire to own his own tools, for the reason he has to reinvest when they break? What if he just can't handle bookkeeping, and what if he can't afford to pay another to do it, due to overhead?

When you install a glass ceiling, someone will reach it. Either they are told to be less successful, or they naturally break it and shards fall on all below. The assumptions in distributism are rife with fantasy about man.

We've replaced the nobleman with the CEO and decry the principle by focusing on the mere name.

Nothing, in concept, is changed. There are risk takers and risk avoiders. There are winners and losers. There are rich and poor. There are landowners and sharecroppers. There are owners and employees. Eschew the owner for the state and you've made everyone a government employee. Eschew the owner and employee difference and you've made the potential for owners/employees to lose both job and business.

It's just very poorly thought out. It's Jack and Diane economic theory, and a high school ring engagement band. And it's all wrapped in the letterman jacket of cool by the names associated, Chesterton and Belloc. Good writers, surely, but economists they're not.
Reply
#49
I agree not every worker even the highly skilled ones are qualified to run a business. That's fine and they can find employment with another. I don't understand these arguments against distributism where one point is taken and driven to an absurd conclusion as if to prove it is logically incorrect.

All distributism says is a guy like me should have access to moola so I can hire those guys. I know of no mandate in it that everyone must be an owner of a business. Further the property spoken of could be a home, but unlike today where the banks have inflated the prices beyond any correlation to it's worth. And the loans are designed to make the home owner a slave.

tim
Reply
#50
(07-04-2013, 12:08 PM)Tim Wrote: The monarchs if and when the NWO is in place will not be the CEO's of Fortune 25, nor the billionaire hedge fund guys, not even the pyramid scheme guys, they are much higher up the food chain, they're the Dynastic Families which own these and the Banks including the National Banks. Follow the money.

tim

But they aren't the ruling families of Christendom, as it seems you're implying.  And not all of them are dynastic.  Some are brought in after pampering and sifting through the rest of us.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)