The Third Economic Option
In today's society, we often forget there is a third option that can easily work alone or in conjunction with modified forms of capitalism so that redistribution of income becomes unnecessary. Of course, this option is truly radical as it requires we as a society to care for each other instead of shirking our duty due to the government's involvement. It is an option that requires a level of compassion often forgotten in today's society. This option is distributism.
Distributism would prevent the government from favoring large corporations over local businesses and ensure that "wealth" is not primarily in the hands of a small number of people. There would, of course, be the need for large scale corporations for things such as the manufacturing cars and electronics, but many of our day-to-day activities can and should be conducted with local people running small businesses that support their families. While stores such as Target and Wal-mart are often viewed as the salvation of many in today's society, they do have a damaging impact on our society even outside of the realm of economics. As one looks like the growth of megastores, one sees that wealth has primarily grown among the wealthy although the poor may have more access to goods that were once unobtainable. This thought process requires us to look at success in terms beyond the physical goods one has access to (wouldn't it be better to have an appliance that can be repaired and last a couple of decades instead of replacing it after a few years) and would prevent the growth of fads that often disappear as quickly as they appeared. It would also offer more stability to our lives and the markets although fads increase the wealth of corporations and celebrities that often promote them.
In some areas, this may indicate a return to a more agrarian society as subsidies to large farms would be cut which many may view as a "step back." In other areas, it would lead to smaller businesses being run by multiple generations of families. Either way, this would lead to more independence of society and more dependence, but the dependence would be on each other instead of a federal conglomerate. We would continue to need safety nets for the poorest among us, but people would actually have more of a chance of getting ahead even if they do not have the desire/ability to handle more advanced educational requirements and as we become more dependent on each other instead of the federal government our compassion towards those in need would grow to leave us more likely to extend a hand to help someone in need. Another plus would be the return of bartering to society on a larger scale instead of relying solely on the exchange of the dollar.
These are off the cuff thoughts that have been going through my head and they do need to be refined to acknowledge the level capitalism that is needed as the roots of distributism are in capitalism while defining the proper role of the state. I've always known the unbridled capitalism that Jeffrey Tucker and others support rubs me the wrong way as it often forgets the least among us while redistribution only expands the state which is already as out of control as a runaway train and continues to favor extremely large corporations. This thought process is based on Catholic Social Teaching and how to apply it to modern society.
subsidiarity--solidarity--distribution
Distributism would prevent the government from favoring large corporations over local businesses and ensure that "wealth" is not primarily in the hands of a small number of people. There would, of course, be the need for large scale corporations for things such as the manufacturing cars and electronics, but many of our day-to-day activities can and should be conducted with local people running small businesses that support their families. While stores such as Target and Wal-mart are often viewed as the salvation of many in today's society, they do have a damaging impact on our society even outside of the realm of economics. As one looks like the growth of megastores, one sees that wealth has primarily grown among the wealthy although the poor may have more access to goods that were once unobtainable. This thought process requires us to look at success in terms beyond the physical goods one has access to (wouldn't it be better to have an appliance that can be repaired and last a couple of decades instead of replacing it after a few years) and would prevent the growth of fads that often disappear as quickly as they appeared. It would also offer more stability to our lives and the markets although fads increase the wealth of corporations and celebrities that often promote them.
In some areas, this may indicate a return to a more agrarian society as subsidies to large farms would be cut which many may view as a "step back." In other areas, it would lead to smaller businesses being run by multiple generations of families. Either way, this would lead to more independence of society and more dependence, but the dependence would be on each other instead of a federal conglomerate. We would continue to need safety nets for the poorest among us, but people would actually have more of a chance of getting ahead even if they do not have the desire/ability to handle more advanced educational requirements and as we become more dependent on each other instead of the federal government our compassion towards those in need would grow to leave us more likely to extend a hand to help someone in need. Another plus would be the return of bartering to society on a larger scale instead of relying solely on the exchange of the dollar.
These are off the cuff thoughts that have been going through my head and they do need to be refined to acknowledge the level capitalism that is needed as the roots of distributism are in capitalism while defining the proper role of the state. I've always known the unbridled capitalism that Jeffrey Tucker and others support rubs me the wrong way as it often forgets the least among us while redistribution only expands the state which is already as out of control as a runaway train and continues to favor extremely large corporations. This thought process is based on Catholic Social Teaching and how to apply it to modern society.
subsidiarity--solidarity--distribution
Comments
Post a Comment