Thursday, April 02, 2015

A comment below about what I am (economically/politically) is too long to answer in a comment box, so I give below a brief (and incomplete) outline. Here goes (most of this has been posted here at sometime in the last 10+ years) ....

I guess you could call me a Distributist, however the name is misleading to some-thinking that it is some kind of socialism, which if most definitely isn’t. Distributism condemns both socialism and unfettered capitalism, in that both big government and big business are ultimately bad for families, local communities, and traditional values, and argues for an economic structure based on the widespread ownership of wealth via strong local economies.

If you ever have a chance to read Catholicism Protestantism and Capitalism by Anmintore Fanfani you may come away with the idea (as I did) that Capitalism has to eventually become Socialism in the final analysis, as the Government has to eventually highly regulate everything to protect the interests of big business. The regulations become so burdensome that the government is the only entity which has the resources to support such a regulated structure. Thus the government has to begin consolidating industries under itself. (Eventually this too will collapse under its own weight.) This is trending in America today-slowly but surely. 

In America we value the ownership of private property. This has become to mean that we own our own home. But few of us really do, as many have found out in recent years (and with property taxes and inheritance taxes, even if you “own” your home, really you are leasing it from the government). 
Ownership of private property also should mean that we own the means to production. The goal should be that as many as possible of the citizens should be owners of property-real property, that is, the means of production: ownership in land, in buildings and equipment, in farms, factories, mines, in commercial enterprises, and in machinery. Workers themselves (Note Well, NOT a socialist or communist government “in the name of workers”)  should own the means of production instead being the tools of production.

Our economic system has come to a point where workers are merely tools for greater profit, to be acquired or discarded as the quarterly numbers dictate. Workers have a dignity which is not respected by too many corporations. Corporations must remember that they exist not just for profits but to provide fulfilling work and wages for their workers.

Increasingly big companies simply use their employees as commodities (even professionals) to be used up and tossed out. Workers often don’t have dignity and respect. Large companies often squeeze and squeeze the benefits and continually do more with less workers. Some of these large companies (effectively subsidized by government policies) only offer part time work so they don’t even have to give benefits.
Politically, I believe in subsidiarity; that is governance should be done at the most local level possible. The role of the government should be in service of man, or if you will, in service of the family. Increasingly central control, whether it be in business, education, or government, robs man of freedom and self-determination. Government in recent years acts more in the service of commerce than in the service of man.

Both major parties favor entitlements: Democrats for the poor; Republicans for the rich in the form of tax breaks and corporate deals and subsidies (think agriculture and roads)-the latter which enrich the owners of the means to production. Government handouts insult the dignity of man, at both ends of the spectrum. 

So we need a system which encourages family unity and encourages the widest distribution of the means of production. These are complementary goals. 

Much more to flesh out, but this is a starting point.

Oremus pro invicem!

No comments: