Thursday, March 09, 2006

 

Distributism IV

A response to Thomas E. Woods’ “What’s Wrong with Distributism

(From Travis' AntiWalmartarian friend)

"These two figures rightly enjoy great renown throughout the Catholic world for their outstanding writing on a variety of subjects, though of course they had no formal training in economics." -in refrence to chesterton and belloc.

I'd just like to point out that while Chesterton had no formal training in economics he also had no formal training in either history, literature or theology. Yet, he is considered one of, if not the greatest writer of the 20th century and one of only three people in the 2,000+ year history of the Catholic Church to be named a defender of the faith. Not bad for no formal training but lets move on.

"--as if a discipline that is devoted to the application of human reason to the problems of scarcity in the world could actually in itself be antagonistic to the Catholic faith."

When a disipline devotes itself to the application of human reason and does not allow for the inclusion of faith it is antagonistic to the Faith. When a disipline, ideal or method relies solely on human reason (especially today when reason has become so twisted and convoluted that it seems reasonable to allow things like abortion) and does not in the least allow for, ideally ask for and seek the grace, wisdom and intervention of God or seek the wisdom of the Church it can than be considered to be man-centric. This is at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church as all things should be centered around God.

"It may well be that a man is better able to care for his family precisely if he does not own his own business or work the backbreaking schedule of running his own farm, partially because he is not ruined if the enterprise for which he works should have to close"

Maybe I'm not reading this one right and I mean that in all seriousness (allergys are killing me today so I appologize if any of this comes off as the drug induced writing of a mad man... ****ing benadryl) But it seems to me that he is trying to say that a man who works for someone else is better off than someone who owns his own buisness because if he is an employee and the buisness for which he works goes under he isn't ruined. Does anyone remember what happened when Stanley furniture closed its plant in west end? I met several of the people who worked there while I was at sandhills.
People who had good paying jobs who were now making minimum wage and going back to school at 50 years old in a desperate attempt to get back to a living wage. Now i'm not saying a small buisness owner would be much better off if his buisness were to collapse but don't pretend he'd be that much worse off than people layed off because the company they worked for wanted cheaper labor to turn a larger profit.

"In other words, the price system, and the system of profit and loss that follows from it, forces him to plan his activity in conformity with the expressed needs of society and in the interest of a genuine stewardship of the things of the earth."

Is this guy serious? Okay i'm no tree hugging hippie, i think we can all readily agree on that. But a genuine stewardship of the things of the earth? Have you been to New Jersey? You go smell Jersey and tell me there is a genuine stewardship with the things of the earth.

"The point is, since we know that man has perfectly valid reasons for seeking the highest return on his investment, or earning the highest wage, instead of wasting time on foolish and irrelevant lamentations regarding the greedy people in the world--a matter of moral philosophy rather than economics--we ought to employ human reason...."

Forgive me if I'm wrong but didn't our foolish and irrelevant lamentations regarding the greed of the British Empire and their policy of taxation bring about the American Revolution. Just a thought. And again he attempts to seperate economics from morality and philosophy instead opting to rely on human reason. Anti-God, Anti-Catholic.

Why does he bring up Luther... he was a heretic who broke off from the Faith. He has no place in a discussion of Catholic social teaching.

"The popes have repeatedly observed that it is more difficult for a man to increase in virtue and to save his soul when living in utter destitution..."

As far as I know this is just an out right lie. If Christ said it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven I doubt the Popes are going to contradict Him. St. Francis owned literally nothing and i'd say he did a pretty good job with that whole saving his sould business.

"More recent papal encyclicals, such as Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, have likewise begun to reflect an understanding of the role of prices, entrepreneurship, and various other aspects of the market economy, thereby acknowledging what educated people around the world have themselves begun to see."

Indeed many of John Paul II's later writing acknowleged the role of the free market and also noted the fact that in its present form and method of operations it is in fact at odds with Catholic teachings. Primarily due to the continuation of immoral business practices. You may think sweatshop labor is okay because it keeps kids from being even worse off but it is an injustice that the Catholic Church will never stand for.

This guy is obviously not a Catholic, or if he is he needs to do some serious soul searching and a lot of research into his religion.

Just thought i'd offer the perspective of someone who actually knows a bit about their faith.

And by the way there are many people in this area that have become involved with community supported agriculture as well as dealing directly with a farm in vass that raises, butchers and sells cows as well as milk, chicken and eggs. It is by far and away the best meat i have ever had. I could get into this more and maybe later i will but right now i'm tired...

Comments:
Well, I don't know if I would call G.K. Chesteron the greatest writer of the last century. I read his "The Man Who Was Thursday" about 3 years ago. I really enjoyed it, but I didn't have a clue what it ment! Eventually, I found an essay that explained it and I admire Chesteron's ambition and beautifal language, but I think his allegorical experiment broke the test tube.

But I guess it's all a matter of taste. :-P
 
I'm reading Heretics right now. a fabulous, witty little book. Thursday was weird, but fascinating. The Father Brown Mysteries are the most accessable Chesterton out there.
 
I think we should concentrate on where we agree. Running a small business is a fine goal. Right now, it's also a rather lofty one; government regulations make it rather difficult. So, what distributists and free-market capitalists should agree on is that government regulations need to change.

First, all farm subsidies need to end. They make it almost impossible to run a family farm.

Second, corporate welfare should end. Large companies shouldn't get checks from the taxpayers.

Third, death taxes should be repealed. They might be the biggest detriment to family farms that exist.

Fourth, simplify the tax code. Reduce taxes.

Fifth, repeal compulsory attendance laws. Family farms and family businesses usually mean that kids are involved. They should be able to work and learn in an environment that parents intend.

Etc, etc. I'm sure you all could think of more, but this is a start.
 
So that you know, Thomas Woods is a well known author. He has written quite a bit about the Catholic church and their influence and intellectual involvement with economics and philosophy.

Working for someone else, rather than owning and running your own business, is quite beneficial for some. The key word is some. Just like it is better for some people to own a business, some people would prefer to leave work at the end of the day and actually leave work. Who are we to judge what is best for other people to pursue?

Three other things:

And again he attempts to seperate economics from morality and philosophy instead opting to rely on human reason.

Economics is amoral.

Why does he bring up Luther... he was a heretic who broke off from the Faith. He has no place in a discussion of Catholic social teaching.

Luther has a place in Catholic social teaching because he was courageous enough to point out problems with the Catholic faith and the way it was being practiced. Everything and everyone needs checks on its power.

As far as I know this is just an out right lie. If Christ said it is more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven I doubt the Popes are going to contradict Him. St. Francis owned literally nothing and i'd say he did a pretty good job with that whole saving his sould business.

I disagree entirely. It is much easier for someone living comfortably to be not to have to steal, cheat, lie, and do so many other immoral/unethical things just to get through their day. For those that live in poverty, morality is much more flexible. For those who can afford to live comforably, morality can be much more fixed.

Besides the eye of the needle, was an entrance to a city. The camel had to kneel down to get through. It could be difficult but no where near impossible.

Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't make him a non-Catholic.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
CrispAds Blog Ads

Does someone you know deserve flowers?
Web Site Hit Counter
Dell Canada

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?