Political theory and Catholic social teaching
#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


Messages In This Thread
Re: Political theory and Catholic social teaching - by jonbhorton - 07-04-2013, 02:00 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)