What's Wrong with the World Comments

(21:14) Paul J Cella on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Paul J Cella
Date: Mar 13, 2010 9:14 PM

“It must be produced artificially and then guarded by favorable legislation.” Quite unlike finance capitalism. That system, as we all know, has never once in all its long days of generosity to the Republic, asked for so much as a gesture of favor from legislation; nor indeed would anyone but a socialist utter a word against its artificiality, for again as we all know, all of finance capital grew up around us by the most pristine of organic processes.

(20:32) Lydia on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Mar 13, 2010 8:32 PM

JSG, I haven't had time to read the whole article yet. But so far, I've seen two "mechanisms." The first is for everybody to run a family farm, make their own furniture, and raise their own chickens. I'm uninterested, since I don't want to do this, and I imagine lots of other people don't either. So this is not viable. Then I get to the next person he's discussing, and I find the following as a "mechanism." (Emphasis added.) The ownership of land, a home, machine-shop, small store, and/or a share of “some necessarily huge machine” needed to become the normal thing, to set the moral tone for society. This would make “for stability in family and community life, for responsibility, for enterprise” and for all the other virtues which had been sacrificed to “an unclean monopoly.” Along with Belloc, Agar agreed that this goal was not in line with existing economic trends: “It must be produced artificially and then guarded by favorable legislation.” But there was little choice: “Either we restore property, or we restore slavery,” through the servile state which waited at the end of monopoly capitalism’s work. Oh. So Steve was right in the initial post: Given the vast disparities in productive potential found in nature between individuals, between ethnicities, between races, and so on and so forth, the only means of avoiding the concentration of ownership of the means of production in the hands of relatively few individuals, ethnicities, races, &c is to build a gigantically powerful centralized state which doesn't mind resorting to main force, whenever necessary, to bring about that goal. I guess we all have to be forced to be free if we don't happen to want to own our own small business or weave our own clothes on a hand loom.

(18:50) Jeff Culbreath on Catholic Imperialism: The Bulls of Donation

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:28:41 -0500

Author: Jeff Culbreath
Date: Mar 13, 2010 6:50 PM
URL: http://culbreath.wordpress.com/

Shouldn't the opportunity cost of invading North Korea be considered? Absolutely. I meant only that the cause would be just, not that the war itself would be just apart from other considerations. Traditionally, three conditions must be met for a just war: 1) War must be declared by legitimate authority. 2) The cause must be just. 3) War must be waged with good intention. St. Thomas: "For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): 'The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.'" Recently, other conditions have developed in Catholic theology (see: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm ): * A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. * A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. * The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. * The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. * The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. These last are of recent vintage in terms of formal catechesis and, to the best of my knowledge, do not rise to the same level of magisterial authority as the original three conditions outlined by St. Thomas. I think they also need a little more fleshing out. The condition that the ultimate goal must be the "re-establishment of peace", for example, seems to oppose the traditional view that wars may be purely punitive. Otherwise these conditions do serve as reliable checks, and when a particular war, such as that against Iraq, seems to fail on practically every count that's a pretty good indication that the war isn't just.

(18:46) Just Some Guy on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Just Some Guy
Date: Mar 13, 2010 6:46 PM

"We doubt whether an actual mechanism exists for making it such an alternative." In the article to which I posted a link above, Carlson lists a number of proposals which might help create this sort of mechanism.

(18:27) Jeff Culbreath on Catholic Imperialism: The Bulls of Donation

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:28:41 -0500

Author: Jeff Culbreath
Date: Mar 13, 2010 6:27 PM
URL: http://culbreath.wordpress.com/

Um, doesn't the fact that they pose no serious threat to us mean that a criterion of just war has not been met? I don't believe so. The popes certainly didn't believe so. St. Thomas put it this way: In the second place, there must be a just cause; that is to say, those attacked must have, by a fault, deserved to be attacked. This is what makes St. Augustine say in Book VI, Question 16, of Questions on Joshua: "Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, when the nation or city against which warlike action is to be directed has neglected either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or to restore what has been unjustly taken by it. Further, that kind of war is undoubtedly just which God Himself ordains." The avenging of injuries is further clarified by the Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm ): Secondary titles [to the right to wage war] may come to a state, * first, from the request of another state in peril (or of a people who happen themselves to be in possession of the right); * secondly, from the fact of the oppression of the innocent, whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way; in this latter case the innocent have the right to resist, charity calls for assistance, and the intervening state may justly assume the communication of the right of the innocent to exercise extreme coercion in their behalf. In better times, moreover, "oppression of the innocent" was understood in light of the Catholic Faith. Enslaving a people in moral or spiritual darkness, persecuting believers, denying the right of all men to have the Gospel preached to them, etc., was considered just cause for war. Therefore St. Bernard of Clairvaux could say with a clear conscience: I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity. All of this, of course, speaks only of "just cause", which is only one of three criteria (or seven, if you count recent additions) to be met before a war can be declared just.

(17:21) Lydia on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Mar 13, 2010 5:21 PM

Yet the distributists and Agrarians put it forward as just such an alternative. We know that. We doubt whether an actual mechanism exists for making it such an alternative. By the way, I'm waking the neighbors about Zippy's agreement with Blackadder. A red-letter day.

(16:48) Just Some Guy on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Just Some Guy
Date: Mar 13, 2010 4:48 PM

"Land reform tends to be a policy of socialist governments, not an alternative to them." Yet the distributists and Agrarians put it forward as just such an alternative. Abusus non tollit usum. Conservatives should be wary of calling a thing "socialist" simply because it doesn't jibe with finance/corporate capitalism.

(16:47) George R. on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: George R.
Date: Mar 13, 2010 4:47 PM

What the Distributists fail to understand is that the equitable distribution of property is an effect of a just society not the cause of one. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few is a symptom not the disease. This is why putting the State in charge of rectifying an inequitable distribution of property is like putting the disease in charge of eradicating the symptom. If a social problem can be fixed by purchasing some land and redistributing it, how is that inherently wrong? Al, I see that you and your ilk are still singing the same Siren song -- 200 million deaths on.

(15:55) Blackadder on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Blackadder
Date: Mar 13, 2010 3:55 PM

Land reform tends to be a policy of socialist governments, not an alternative to them.

(15:46) al on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: al
Date: Mar 13, 2010 3:46 PM

"It's either redistribution by some sort of state power..." A little too simple perhaps. After all those landlords acquired that land in some manner and perhaps through the use or misuse of some sort of state power. Here is Chesterson: "But in connection with this distribution I have laid myself open to another potential mistake. In speaking of a sweeping redistribution, I speak of decision in the aim, not necessarily of abruptness in the means. It is not at all too late to restore an approximately rational state of English possessions without any mere confiscation. A policy of buying out landlordism, steadily adopted in England as it has already been adopted in Ireland (notably in Mr. Wyndham's wise and fruitful Act), would in a very short time release the lower end of the see-saw and make the whole plank swing more level." If a social problem can be fixed by purchasing some land and redistributing it, how is that inherently wrong?

(15:38) Kevin J Jones on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Kevin J Jones
Date: Mar 13, 2010 3:38 PM
URL: http://twitter.com/kevinjjones

I don't intend to argue for land confiscation, I'm just noting the possible objections to Steve Burton's political psychology. Forced to choose between incipient socialism that confiscates property for the government to own and plan, and a land reform system that confiscates property for the people who have been working it, I'd go with the latter. But I'd prefer to encourage latifundistas to break up their property without government coercion. Land reform is not relevant for a technological, urbanized society where most people are not agriculturalists.

(15:01) Lydia on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Mar 13, 2010 3:01 PM

The Distributists looked to land reform measures in Ireland as one of their models. There a mistreated, colonized people worked to confiscate the land of absentee owners and sought to give it to the native people who had been working it for generations. Kevin, I hate to say it, but to me this does not sound good. It's either redistribution by some sort of state power (someone had to stop the landlords if they tried to come back and start acting like they owned that land again) or else sheer anarchy. Neither is very attractive.

(14:50) Stephen on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Stephen
Date: Mar 13, 2010 2:50 PM

Congress was also charged with maintaining a sound currency, which allows for the fair exchange of goods and services with money. Big deal if you own property, but can't exchange it or fruits from it for fair value. The degree to which our currency is so arbitrary in how its value is determined, to say nothing of the fact that inflation by definition reduces its purchasing value, is a topic that needs to be considered when talking about distributism. So what can we look to for guidance, short of a return to a gold standard or index of precious metals? Here's something to consider - the economic histories of Taiwan and South Korea. Both were in near poverty and illiquid within living memory. Both have achieved remarkable economic success in many ways. Somewhere I remember reading that the two countries had extremely different levels of corporate concentration, however; one - I believe it was South Korea - had government led artificially lower interest rates which allowed for greater concentration in fewer hands, whereas in Taiwan the more market based approach to lending money generated higher interest rates over the years and this led to having more smaller corporations over the years than in South Korea, both overall and as a percentage of net holdings.

(13:47) Kevin J Jones on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Kevin J Jones
Date: Mar 13, 2010 1:47 PM
URL: http://twitter.com/kevinjjones

Steve Burton writes: Note that Distributism is, fundamentally, a consequentialist doctrine - i.e., it seeks to maximize a certain ideal end-state-of-affairs viz., the widest possible distribution of ownership of the means of production - while leaving the means by which this is accomplished pretty much up for grabs. The use of "consequentialism" here is confusing to me. Deciding upon the means by which something is to be accomplished is a matter of prudence. If property rights are absolute, then I see how distributism would advocate the violation of a moral absolute in order for certan consequences to be achieved. the only means of avoiding the concentration of ownership of the means of production in the hands of relatively few individuals, ethnicities, races, &c is to build a gigantically powerful centralized state which doesn't mind resorting to main force, whenever necessary, to bring about that goal... Trouble is, once that gigantically powerful centralized state gets built - who do you think stands the best chance of taking charge of it? While this counterproductive scenario makes sense a priori, I have to ask if it has happened in practice. The Distributists looked to land reform measures in Ireland as one of their models. There a mistreated, colonized people worked to confiscate the land of absentee owners and sought to give it to the native people who had been working it for generations. While some corruption was inevitable, Was the effort so co-opted as armchair psychology implies it would have been? Land reform efforts in Latin America may have been even more needed to forestall socialism, but they could have faced greater obstacles because of greater corruption and other cultural factors. Finally, let's remember that Chesterbelloc was quite aware of the collaboration between the plutocrat and the socialist, "Hudge and Gudge" as he called them in WWWW, so I think it's too easy to dismiss him as naive. We're already living in a mega-state. Efforts to combat a maximalist government can also be dismissed on theories of institutional psychology: to destroy a powerful dysfunctional bureaucracy, you'll need an even more powerful bureaucracy, which won't then relinquish power. Doomed to failure! Critics of the minimalist government ideal can also condemn it: powerful people will just buy their way into power anyway, and grow the govt for their benefit. The problem is in part power, but also a matter of character: if the powerful classes (and even the powerless classes) look to Donald Trump, rather than Cincinnatus, for their ethical models, dysfunctional self-interest maximization will triumph over disinterested republicanism. (Also, for Denver-area readers like Ben, the Denver Chesterton Society will be discussing the first two books of What's Wrong with the World at this Monday's meeting. )

(11:12) al on Catholic Imperialism: The Bulls of Donation

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:28:41 -0500

Author: al
Date: Mar 13, 2010 11:12 AM

Shouldn't the opportunity cost of invading North Korea be considered? Also, what about China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia?

(11:02) Paul Nelson on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Paul Nelson
Date: Mar 13, 2010 11:02 AM
URL: http://www.discovery.org/csc

Steve, Typo: "...gave this blog ITS name" (not it's).

(10:05) Paul J Cella on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Paul J Cella
Date: Mar 13, 2010 10:05 AM

I hope to publish somewhere at some point about the convergence of the American founders and Catholic political philosophy on the idea of property distribution. That is a very interesting idea, Joe: one which I have given some thought to over the years too. Willmoore Kendall actually suggested that Hamilton, in composing the Preamble to the Constitution, had drawn from the political ideas of the medieval Schoolmen. Certainly (as I have argued with Lockeans and other moderns regularly) the Preamble offers little in the way of Lockean "rights" talk; nor does its so much has mention equality. Instead we get a set of purposes for political society that would have been familiar to virtually any political theorist of antiquity or the Middle Ages -- union, justice, tranquility, defense, etc. Anyway, I think this is a very fruitful line of thought, not at least because for about a century the trend in American political thought has been to emphasize all that is modern and novel in the American tradition (and there is certainly plenty of that in it) while neglecting the curiously central themes that are not. I would recommend a careful study of Willmoore Kendall and his collaborator George Carey (a recent book about whom we excerpted here: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/11/book_excerpt_defending_the_rep.html) for a bracing scholarly approach to the American tradition that gives the moderns the critique and correction they deserve.

(09:45) Zippy on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Zippy
Date: Mar 13, 2010 9:45 AM
URL: http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com/

I'm not, as Steve suggested in another thread, a distributist. Wake the neighbors: I agree with Blackadder on an economic matter. On the other hand I do think the experiment in eliminating all authority from persons, and instead vesting authority in rules, where the legitimacy of the authority of those rules resides in some amorphous "consent of the governed", is over, and has failed. When the patient will die is always an open question; but that he will die is now assured. So I'm probably more Moldbugian than Chestertonian on the issue.

(05:47) William Luse on Catholic Imperialism: The Bulls of Donation

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:28:41 -0500

Author: William Luse
Date: Mar 13, 2010 5:47 AM
URL: http://wluse.blogspot.com

If the United States were to invade and conquer North Korea, a nation which poses no serious threat to us, there would be no injustice provided that the other criterion of just war were met. Um, doesn't the fact that they pose no serious threat to us mean that a criterion of just war has not been met?

(02:19) Blackadder on What's Wrong With Distributism

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:26 -0500

Author: Blackadder
Date: Mar 13, 2010 2:19 AM

As long as the discussion is kept at a fairly general level, Distributism sounds pretty appealing. After all, who is against wider ownership of property? But when you push past this to the specifics of what Distributists want to do, I don't think the math works out, so to speak.