Distributism Intro

[parasitesarefunny]

All that is required is:

1.) Private Property

2.) Monopoly Laws

3.) Trade Tariffs 

[GregariousGorilla]

So if America suddenly adopted the economic theory of distributism, how will the federal government be able to pay for social programs, education, and defense if the wealth is decentralized?

[Greenmist14]

that was awesome man! Have you read the new dristributist book " Toward a Truly Free Market" by John C. Medaille?

[maximuslaurius]

Phillip Blond in the UK is quite an influential voice in modern distributism ; he has used the terms "Red Toryism" and (better) "Civic Conservatism"

[maximuslaurius]

How do Distributists like yourself feel about taxation; I have been a fan of a national sales tax like the Fairtax but I have also been reading a lot about Georgism and a tax on land value.

[Glyre777]

I'm not a Christian, but I see the great wisdom in Distributism...I am simply surprised that it is not more well known. I think I may be a distributist.

[TenderTrap86]

@Glyre777 GK Chesterton wrote in "Why I Became A Catholic" that the Catholic Church has before been the proponent of ideas so new, they just got themselves called crazy. Francisco Suarez and Roberto Bellarmino both recognized Enlightenment ideals of local government and international law, over 200 years before the revolutions in America and France. Jesuit casuistry was mocked for being psychology, 300 years before pyschology became fashionable. Distributism is such an intellectual movement.

[TheMedievalMan]

LOL, this is what everyone always tells me, every time I tell them about Distributism. They accuse me of being some kind of Socialist.

[tf8252]

So if a new business is growing within you model..at what point do you cut them off at the legs to prevent them from growing to Wal-Mart size? Which consumers lose out because they business was not allowed to grow to serve them? Who makes these decisions?

[mrevera]

Thanks, good stuff here. I'd like to see emphasis focused on circulation as opposed to distribution.

Distribution implies ownership when in fact abundance occurs when we own nothing (except private property), but have access to everything, along with absolute freedom and privacy.

Call it Circulationism, and give it a Time Currency. See it as a system where nothing is bought, instead everything is given, and so received, in the measure of hours a person puts into the system.

[OriamendiMexico]

Hello sir.

I like Distributism as well. I remember hearing about Chesterton and Belloc having the same issue. They realized too late that the name "Distributism" would mislead people.

It is named after Distributive Justice from the encyclical Rerum Novarum.

I'm also a supporter of the Ancien Regime (that's not a typo), and I believe Distributism will not work to restore Christian order by itself. It is a necessary component of Christian civilization, but must not work alone.

[megagagnon1]

vermont doesn't allow walmarts into their state

[okayillgonow]

And good thing it doesn't. :) (:

[TenderTrap86]

Over 200 years before the American Revolution, Francisco Suarez and Robert Bellarmine already theorized of what we, today, obviously know to be democracy. What was their reward? They were seen as secretive Jesuit assassins sent by the Pope to lurk in the shadows with daggers for the monarchs of Europe. The facade that Catholics are always behind the times must perist. So when distributism gets it's new name and becomes trendy, just remember that Belloc and Chesterton won't be mentioned at all.

[xxdiogenescynicxx]

This is an interesting theory, I didn't know much about distributism until hearing cooperative ownership lectures by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen which then lead me to GK Chesterton.

[shadow3772]

Where did Chesterton and Belloc predict the current economic crisis?

[paleocrat]

One couldn't read The Servile State by Belloc without seeing the writing on the walls. The concentration of wealth and the means of production was, according to Belloc, the golden brick road to socialism and rampant state intervention. These centers of money and power would be deemed "too big to fail." Add to the mix the casino capitalism of credit swaps and hedge funds and you have a sure recipe for a predictable economic crisis.

Distributists weren't surprised by this. They anticipated it.

[maximuslaurius]

theres an old BBC documentary on youtube of the Mondragon Co-operative in spain; very inspiring.

[maximuslaurius]

im a stalwart agnostic and im still REALLY liking this system; it seems to take all the good parts of worker empowerment without the class conflict of socialism.

[paleocrat]

I believe that both Belloc and Chesterton, as well as Penty, were socialists prior to Rerum Novarum. They also worked on the definition of socialism provided not by the Austrian school, which sees any state intervention or interaction within the political economy as a form of socialism and State worship, but the definition provided by the Church. This acknowledged that a humane economy is a human directed economy not left to the whims and fancies of invisible and impersonal market forces.

[OldCottage2]

The Austrian school doesn't see the economy as directed by "impersonal forces," but on the very personal force of human individuals making voluntary choices. It analyzes natural human behavior and bases predictions upon its analysis of human behavior, which quickly shows that aggression tends to bring impoverishment while voluntary interaction tends to bring prosperity. It is both logical and compatible with the concept of a fully voluntary society, which is also the only moral way.

[paleocrat]

The difficulty here concerns ultimate standards. You begin with unargued assumptions concerning the ethical supremacy of individualism, belief that material prosperity is the primary aim of economic activity, that activities done freely satisfies the necessary preconditions of justice, that the State must stay out of economic affairs, etc.

All of these are problematic, as John Medaille points out in "Political Economy as a Science" and I point out in articles directed towards Thomas Woods, Jr.

[paleocrat]

cont. Analyzing human actions, presuming economics to be a morally neutral "positive" science, doesn't get you far unless you assume beforehand what is economically good or preferable. So what that doing X typically results in Y when done under condition Z. So long as you approach the matter as a morally neutral science, coming to conclusions concerning the goodness of this observation is a fool's errand. So one must first demonstrate on what basis he presumes his ethical standard to be binding.

[MetalHead1492]

I Love your videos!

i thought was distributism was and undereground sorta thing but i guess its not!

if only we could get a party on our side (besides the BNP)

[paleocrat]

Thanks for the compliments. I am also excited to see a sudden burst of public interest in distributism. Even in those instances where people aren't familiar with the term or even the writers, the ideas they advocated are being seriously considered by many Americans. A humane economy of scale, decentralized, with industry, service, and farming sectors working in harmony. Opposition to Big Business, Wall St., and Casino Capitalism is also striking a chord. It's all blue skies for folks like me. :)

[OldCottage2]

cont: Distributism seems to focus on a romantic pastoral ideal, without really analyzing the means to institute it. Insofar as the means involve aggression, it's not only immoral, but counterproductive, creating poverty instead of prosperity. Of course, if the means are fully voluntary, then it's a matter of voluntary choices within a free market. But distributists are oblique as to whether they want to use voluntary persuasion or the gun-to-the-head method of instituting their pastoral ideal.

[paleocrat]

In all honesty, have you read much from the distributist? Both those of yesteryear and those of current day have written extensively on the means by which a distributist society would be put in place. In fact, Belloc's "Essay on the Restoration of Property" is an excellent example. Chesterton's "Outline of Sanity" is another. Both were incrementalists, focusing on what can be done in the here and now, locally, at home, in the family, and in the Church. But state intervention was not prohibited.

[OldCottage2]

"state intervention was not prohibited."

Full stop. That's the problem. State intervention is based on aggression and aggression is always evil. It also generates conflict, poverty, and social disintegration; is this a Catholic goal? This is indeed a moral issue, as well as practical one. And it is predicated of the will of the individual because anything else is illogical. Collectives have no will, no reason, no soul, only individuals.

[paleocrat]

OK, you successfully posted a host of unargued assumptions derived from ethical presuppositions you have yet to explain or justify. Your beliefs pertaining to the state, its function, the political economy, how it ought to work, its ultimate goal, and the moral standard by which we must resort to when determining ethical means by which to accomplish said ends are fine and predictably dandy, but the worldview you hold that determines these things is... well... absent.

[OldCottage2]

Maybe it would help if you tell me where you disagree with my "unargued assumptions." Do you disagree that aggression is immoral?

[paleocrat]

The issue here is not whether or not you and I oppose aggression as being immoral. The difficulty here is what moral authority you and I resort to when wishing to decide what constitutes immoral aggression. My standard, particularly that pertaining to whether or not certain actions by the civil government would be deemed immoral aggression, is apparently different from yours. Submitting to the encyclicals, allowing the Magisterium to define the State, its function, etc., would put us at odds.

[OldCottage2]

If you won't use your own reasoning facility to analyze the problem, then it's pure fideism. It's true I can't argue against fideism, but don't expect anyone to go along with it if you try to impose your will upon them. But if you want to use reason you can't just hide behind a curtain of, "Well, our standards are just different, is all."

[paleocrat]

Fideism is faith for faith's sake. It is worse than unreasoned faith. It is both unreasoned and unreasonable. This is a far cry from what I am doing or talking about.

The issue here is presuppositional. It concerns ultimate standards of epistemology, ethics, etc. It also provides the framework wherein evidence and reason are set.

The Church, as universal Mater et Magistra, made self-attesting claims of competence, authority, jurisdiction. Your beef is not with me, but the Church. Sorry, guy.

[OldCottage2]

But you haven't given a reason why State coercion can be justified. You've just said, "Well, my standard of aggression is different from yours." But your definition is wrong. It's illogical. If your definition were the Pope's definition, then the Pope would be wrong too, just as he would be if he claimed that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

[cambycam]

The state has always had some coercion-if you do not pay your bills, the state sends out someone to seize your car, home,etc......speed, get a ticket.......beat up someone, go to jail......if you take my stuff and hold it in your house, does not the state correct the problem and get it back? Either the state has limited corrective justice or we have anarchy, in which,eventually, someone will rise up and a ruling class established.often, not good either.......

[OldCottage2]

I am an anarchist, in that I believe in a fully voluntary society. If someone commits an act of aggression against you, you have the right to retaliate. I'm not against retaliatory force, only initiatory force.

[paleocrat]

Distributism, and Catholic Social Teaching in general, is generally opposed to imposing systems upon a nation through military or state violence. Persuasion through conversion, education, example, and obedience to the verdicts of the Magisterium are preferred. But this is not to say that the Church forbids or condemns state intervention. In fact, the Magisterium demands it.

As I said earlier, this entire discussion is presuppositional in nature. Discussing ultimate standards is a must.

[OldCottage2]

cont: "Catholic Social Teaching in general, is generally opposed to imposing systems upon a nation through military or state violence."

The Catholic Church teaches the concept of subsidiarity, which teaches that the State should only undertake tasks that voluntary society can't competently perform. Given the knowledge that the State is always more incompetent than voluntary society, should a Catholic not always oppose State violence, even disregarding the inherent immorality of aggression?

[paleocrat]

Collectives have no will. Church teaches subsidiarity. Why cherry-pick the Magisterium here?

1. The Church teaches that society has a purpose, design, order, and end that is determined not internally, but externally by God. No collective will of the people necessary here.

2. Your definition of subsidiarity is scandalous... need more space.

[paleocrat]

(cont.) Mater et Magistra #53 sounds much like your definition. But you have to ignore #s 52 and 54-56. Contextually, #53 presupposes a description of the state, its function, and its responsibilities within the political economy.

Quadragesio Anno, where the principle was first defined, speaks at length about the state and the economy. #s 25, 28, 57, 82, others counter your definition. Note especially #s 88, 109, and 110, all condemning your understanding of the state, economy and subsidiarity

[cambycam]

THanks for great videos and grat defense-a lot of open minds and hearts-a few pinheads.......

[paleocrat]

Let's just add a few from the CCC and Compendium for kicks.

Compendium: subsidiarity (403), common good (407), authority in various spheres of civil society (463), purpose of CST (509), condemned by CST (512), state and labor (515), international justice and solidarity (518).

CCC: Society (1880), subsidiarity (1883), civil authority (1897), common good (1906-1910), duties of gov (2210), gov & basic needs (2402), regulating ownership (2406), condemning your view (2425 and 2431).

Have fun.

[Spillers72]

I like distributionist ideas as well. I think you should study mutualism which is very similar but is more developed.

[galen106]

Well said, Catholic Cousin! Hail to Distributism, and Hail to Tradition!

93

Y

[netherlander85]

The decrease in population that is part of the farming community cannot be entirely blamed upon corporations and the like. A huge increase in efficiency plays the largest part in my opinion. The land produces more than twice what it did only a couple decades ago and it takes probably one third the people to produce this amount. As a result, many would-be farmers found other work, saturating other job markets even further.

[birddogg62]

Distributism is king.

[paleocrat]

The Austrian school (i.e. Mises Institute, Acton Institute, etc.) claim that distributism is a dead horse, but then they spend a bunch of time and money printing books and articles opposed to it. Why spend time and money discrediting a dead horse?

The recent populist swing from the bailouts directed towards Wall St., banks, Big Auto, and Big Business in general also led people to reconsider distributism. Capitalism was for gamblers and socialism was Robin Hood economics. Distributism was right.

[bookstar77]

Distributism will never change it's name. Chesterton called it "awkward but accurate". And as far as I'm concerned, it's better to be accurate than anything else.

[paleocrat]

If I had to bet the farm on whether or not Distributism will ever be identified by another name, I would place my bets with you. I wrote a post about it on the Distributist Review, and the comment section is pretty interesting.

My main concerns are simple:

1. People in America automatically identify distributism with the governmental redistribution of wealth and all the baggage that comes with it.

2. The correlation is with money over against distributive justice.

I am coming to grips w/ it

[fede2]

it's still not clear to me exactly how distributism is any different from "redistribution of wealth". it seems like a mere reform of capitalism. correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to take for granted the aspect of generating the wealth. where does that preexisting wealth come from? from what i interpret it is a system of dependancy and the issues with that should be self-evident.

[paleocrat]

Well, in one way it would be. But it would work much different than the way it does currently in the US. The redistribution would be a result of laws put in place. These would include but are not limited to trustbusting laws, laws against land-grabbing, stricter monopoly laws, and tariffs. Belloc wrote a short book entitled "An Essay on the Restoration of Property" that deals with these very issues.

Up, down, and back around taxation and redistribution would be relatively minute.

[fede2]

interesting.

[Septeus7]

Doesn't Roger know Microsoft owes its existence to anti-free market copyright protectionism and Mary Maxwell Gates's connections to United Way of America.

One should also mention that his father was on the board of Planned Parenthood and today as co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation continues eugenics in Africa using them for illegal medical experiments.

The Gates are a connected banker's family. The is no fortune created in this system without the approval of the oligarchs.

[espunde]

Distributism reminds me of socialism, but just decentralised, if that can even be possible. also the whole idea of local associations setting wages and prices is absurd. All that would happen is that the economy would be strangled, and businesses would flit about from place to place looking for the cheapest city to do business. And these local associations would invariably become politicised, so I don't see how they would stay purely local, as power begets power and aggrandises itself.

[paleocrat]

Distributists are staunchly opposed to Socialism. In fact, their contention was that the economic centralization (oligarchy) that naturally results from Capitalism is the Golden Brick Road to Socialism.

You must brush up on your history here. Guilds setting prices and wages were the way of the day for centuries. This is true even of the wealthiest nations!

The economic oligarchy we have now is politicized. The decentralization of associations based on vocation would make this much harder.

[espunde]

Labor associations, whether they be guilds or labor unions, naturally reduce competition and make the production of goods and services more expensivethey benefit only those in the guild, like UAW with its overly lavish benefits. Like cartels, they concentrate power into the hands of a few, and they become a political appendage of the state. And how does the wage contract dehumanise the laborer? His labor is the commodity to be contracted, not himself, as if he were a serf.

[paleocrat]

If by reduce competition you mean disabling the giants from pummeling the local and small businesses, or gobbling up land and the means of production, then yes. And proudly so.

You would do well to better familiarize yourself with the difference between guilds and modern unions. Not even close.

It dehumanized it because it takes the "his" out of labor. It takes account of labor and time, but not livelihood. The masses work for the few, the few accumulated masses of wealth. Call them "masters."

[gpattt]

A wage is inseperable from the value of the service rendered. It sounds like you're redefining this.

[paleocrat]

You are quite correct. But Distributists do not restrict the wage to the service rendered. Your economic model may say as much, but this is not true of every economic model. And this just happens to be the very thing under discussion.

I will be talking more about this particular issue on Friday's program. Listen in. Call if you wish.

[gpattt]

what do you mean by "Distributists do not restrict the wage to the service rendered"? How else do you determine what to pay someone?

[paleocrat]

We believe that a man works in order to satisfy what is necessary for his needs or, if he is a family man, to provide for the basic needs of his family.

Advocacy of the wage-contract without a clear recognition of the personal element of work is to dehumanize the laborer, to treat him as a mere commodity.

This may be at the root of our support for labor associations (though most support a Guild-like system over against nationalized unions) and reform in areas pertaining to the common good.

[gpattt]

Are there not people who ought to be rich because of the value of their God-given talents? Is it not possible that God would call his holy ones even to a lifestyle of wealth to elicit love through free-will giving and sharing the fruits of God's graces, having a responsibility before almighty God to be good stewards of what he has given? The human spirit was made for greatness, and God's calling is varied. Widespread ownership sounds like government regulation that hampers human freedom.

[paleocrat]

Currently, most are wage-earners. Most don't use their gifts. Most don't specialize in their craft. Most work for others, having to be trained in a short period of time to sell various products.

Our economic policy, as well as the way wealth is distributed (not redistributed), should reflect the awesome diversity of gifts and talents within the population. Instead, they squandered away as the many work for the few.

And then we wonder why so many people dislike their work...

[VeiledGlory]

Sharon Astyk has a great chapter on the "domestic economy" in her book, Depletion and Abundance.

[Henkera]

The TV vs altar anology isnt that bad. They both dehumanise and make people dumber. Therefor making it so easy for the other 10% to own all their money.

[wainscottbl]

Well, I look foward to the further discussions and the interview.

[RogerOnTheRight]

We are given a wage? I thought that was to be earned.

Don't markets set prices, for everything including labour?

Are we to be free to engage in commerce as we please? Enter and exit a business. Buy and sell to and from whom we please?

Can I really sell my property, or not?

Solidarity? What is that?

Labour associations? Rule by the "workers"? Is that like "the people", collectivism?

I can't tell if propose Marxism or free markets.

Read "Liberal Fascism". Important history for you.

[paleocrat]

Sure, people earn a living. But the "living" has been replaced by wage-earning. If you wish to treat people and their time like commodities, go for it.

Markets set prices, to a certain extent, in certain economic models. But it hasn't always been that way.

Why couldn't you sell your property?

Solidarity. Look it up. Particularly Pesch and Solidarism.

An industry would be primarily in the hands of craftsman and technicians within that particular field.

Marxism and classical liberalism suck.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Craftsmen and technicians?

Are executives included? If so, to what degree?

What determines wages, prices and ownership rights?

And how do markets *not* set prices, but by government intervention? You favour intervention by government?

[paleocrat]

Distributists typically advocate regulative associations, whether they be guilds or unions. These would be regulative, not productive, meaning that they maintain fixed and just prices, the regulation of machinery, volume of production, apprenticeship, size of units being produced, as well as the quality of the product and workmanship and the enforcement of moral conduct and standards.

The more rabid, like Penty, would like control of industry placed in the hands of the associations completely.

[paleocrat]

To quote Distributist John Medaille:

"A pure market system has never been attempted, because it cannot be attempted. Markets require fully socialized and ethical participants in order to function"

Concerning markets, market value and determination he writes...

[RogerOnTheRight]

He is simply wrong. Not only do markets work, their forces cannot be avoided. Even in a regulated economy, market forces come into play, through shortages, absurdly wasteful overproduction, and black markets.

What you describe as desirable, so far is "scientific socialism". Whether international or national, it all comes down to one group controlling resources, and totalitarianism.

History ought not be ignored here. It isn't a pretty picture what socialism has done to humans.

[paleocrat]

Socialism would historically mean the government taking control over the means of production. Have I endorsed that? The fact that Socialists (I believe one to be Upton Sinclair) debated Chesterton and other Distributists is an indicator that they didn't see eye to eye. Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the works of Belloc (The Servile State) and Chesterton would show this criticism to be ill-founded.

The Chesterbelloc Mandate has entire links dedicated to Distributism vs. Socialism.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Sure they argued. That does not make them opposites. Mussolini disagreed with the Bolsheviks, but they were all socialists.

Yet, they despised each other. That is how fascism came to be declared "right", when it is really "left". It was simply the enemy of the "perfect".

Those "regulative associations", would they have the power of law on their side? And this is not government?

C'mon now. I think you know better.

[paleocrat]

Listen, Roger. Distributism and its writers, most notable of which were Belloc and Chesterton, are most certainly not socialist. Were one to have even an elementary understanding of the philosophy, or have done even a cursory glance over the more prominent works (Chesterton's "Outline of Sanity" and Belloc's "The Servile State") would show this to be true.

Before spitting fire at me, read links on The Chesterbelloc Mandate. I'll even hyperlink some in the "more info" section. Then talk to me.

[paleocrat]

As to the question of the proper role of the government in these affairs, there would be some disagreement. But this is true in most any school of thought. Some take subsidiarity much further than I would. I would say, though, that the force of law should back the associations. But there is disagreement.

[paleocrat]

I posted 4 links from two sites. All are good links, and both are good sites.

You may ought to ask yourself why so many writers from Chronicles Magazine and The American Conservative (as well as the National Review prior to being taken over by neoconservatives) were such admirers of the Distributists. Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Samuel Francis, Chilton Williamson, Pat Buchanan, and many others have heaped praise upon praise on Distributism and its champions.

I'm not Left... just Old Right.

[antipelagian]

Roger, Distributism is not even close to socialism. The government does not own the means of production, nor does distributism mean the government re-distributes wealth.

I'm not sure I agree with distributism about the solution, but it seems to diagnose to problem that rears it's head in capitalism...successful business is not determined by productivity, many times it is determined by the amount of capital someone has that he can squash his competition with.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I understand, but the so-called problems with capitalism are typically not problems at all.

Look at Microsoft, coming from nowhere and accumulating capital enough to overtake IBM as the biggest of the bunch.

Regardless of "systems", capital naturally seeks return. The question is, what is the most efficient way for this to happen?

Is it a decision by a relative few, or the product of a larger group, ie participants in a market?

[antipelagian]

I know the "little" guy still makes in...in fact, if I have to choose between capitalism, socialism, and distributism...I'd still go with capitalism at this point.

We see what happens when money is *the* driving force for businesses...quality and service goes down...jobs go bye-bye to China.

[RogerOnTheRight]

The problem with China is not their size or business prowess, but their political instability. A command economy cannot sustain 10% end over end growth indefinitely. Hard enough for our system, but theirs cannot handle it. And, when we suffer, they will suffer more. They depend on us much more than we depend on them.

Think of it this way: if our jobs *all* go to China, to whom will the Chinese sell?

[paleocrat]

Capitalism as defined by Belloc in The Servile State.

A society in which private property in land and capital, that is, the ownership and therefore the control of the means of production, is confined to some number of free citizens not large enough to determine the social mass of the state, while the rest have not such property and are therefore proletarian, we call capitalist."

The state characterized by a section of the nation markedly less than the whole, or even to a small minority.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Coming on the heels of the Industrial Revolution and the social upheaval it produced, it is no surprise Belloc would see it this way.

Yet, we have an age where information and its use power industrial strength right out of basement offices. Capital formation is easier than ever, despite the insanity of our government's monetary policy.

Capitalism needs a new name. It ain't what it used to be, though our economic system in the US has served us well for a century or more.

[paleocrat]

It has served a few very well (11% owning 90% of the nation's capital). But what about the 89%? Well, they have served the few very well.

You deny that his definition is as applicable today, with the disparity between the few and the many? It is horrific! Though I will grant you this: He would probably define our current system as the Servile State, having a considerable number of families and individuals constrained by positive law to work for others, so to stamp our nation with this mark.

[paleocrat]

Capitalism, by its nature, creates a legal system whereby the few are protected. This machine leaves "livelihood" in the hands of those few possessors, or capitalists. The only thing dividing the proletariat and starvation is the whim of the capitalist, those select few (the 11% owning 90% of capital in this nation) as well as their institutions that are protected by our politicians, legal system, and economic policies.

Any wonder why special interest precedes common good, Wall St. over Main?

[RogerOnTheRight]

Good grief. 80 years ago we had company towns and such problems were common. Now, we have mobile labour and companies indeed compete for it.

Our ridiculous health care system is screwed up precisely because of this competition, warped by government intervention.

In an information-driven economy such as this, markets have no reason not to be free, labour and capital both.

[paleocrat]

But widespread ownership was the mark of the community and nation. Distributists don't want to eliminate competition. What we seek are cooperative bodies that bind men of similar crafts and industries together, preventing economic oligarchy, preventing the cut-throat competition inherent within Capitalism. Such competition would reduce waste (time, material, capital, etc.) as well as assure protection from owners conspiring with one another, under the protection of law, to eliminate others.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Widespread ownership was the mark of the community and nation? When did this phenomenon occur? Certainly not in our history. Some of the wealthiest humans on the planet were our own founding fathers.

These "cooperative bodies", can I form my own competing "body"? Any time, in any industry, on my own?

[paleocrat]

..

"In the first place, knowing the marginal revenue means knowing what the demand curve will be, and this is generally just a guess, for all the reasons we have already mentioned. But it is the marginal cost that is most problematic. When an economist thinks of costs, he thinks of all the resources that were consumed in making the product. The businessman, however, only thinks of the costs he actually has to pay. Other costs may be externalized... placed on those not purchasing the product."

[ariaane]

If classical liberalism sucks, can you explain your channel name, as paeloconservatism is an offshoot and rather identical to classical liberalism?

This is not an attack- I'm just curious....

[paleocrat]

Paleocrat is derived from two separate words. One means old or ancient while the other means order or law.

Put together and used to describe one's worldview, I would say it places me among the traditionalists. It may toss me in with the monarchists, aristocracts, guild advocates, distributists, solidarists, paleoconservatives, or even nationalists... but certainly not anything resembling the Elephant Man economics that hobbled out of Austria... the Quaisomodo of Enlightenment economics.

[ariaane]

Thanks for the explanation.

Out of curiousity, what you do make of the likes of Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente? (That is, if you know of them).

[paleocrat]

Schiff is chums with Austrian Economics and works along with the Misies Institute, both of which are anathema in my books. As for Gerald Celente, I most certainly agree with him on matters pertaining to Wall St., speculators, fiat money, and the Federal Reserve. Beyond that, I am not at all sure.

[ariaane]

You are aware that Peter Schiff called the current economic crisis eons before the economy dropped, right?

What is your take on socialised and privatised education, too?

As for creating your ideal distributist society, do you suggest imposing some type of force to achieve it?

[paleocrat]

Chesterton and Belloc predicted this sort of thing in the early part of the 20th century, but would this require you to be a distributist?

Not a fan of socialized education. I am a home school advocate.

Yes. Belloc, Chesterton and Penty did as well. Catholic social teaching does not believe that the use of force (if by force you mean State or institutional intervention into the political economy) is a "necessary evil." Rather, it is part of the purpose and function of the State.