Economic/Political models

I am very interested in this topic... some thoughts, and some background:

Some of my favorite books in college were books about utopian societies. What is best for the whole AND what is most conducive to the self-actualization of the individual is extremely interesting to me.

Of course there are no perfect models, because there are no perfect humans. But because we live in a 1st World that is largely capitalist, I am really interested in not assuming that that means capitalism is the best economic model. In fact, I would challenge that it's not.

I am also not interested in a collectivist society, like communism. I believe there is a middle ground somewhere--for instance, I do like Bernie's brand of Democratic Socialism (PLEASE don't call it socialism/communism--it's not). I'm also really interested in Distributism--which, again, DON'T be fooled into thinking that distributism is about taking money from the rich and giving to the poor (redistribution of wealth). It's not.

Here's another thought (I'm totally rambling): A lot of my progressive Catholic friends find it appalling that right-wing Catholics think they are fulfilling Christ's mission to think of the least among us. (This topic has come up again in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to Supreme Court).

And finally, here's my third thought in a collection of entirely random jottings: One of the people on a FB group I follow--fans of Charles Eisenstein (the author of Sacred Economics and proponent of the gift economy), posted this interesting article that states that people are less selfish under capitalism: https://fee.org/articles/people-are-...er-capitalism/

And my final thought (and here is my dark side coming out--I wound up infrequently vile on UL's test and here is my vile side): in spite of how generous we have been with my BIL, and we are ONLY charging him $350/mo rent--when my husband asked him to ship his bagpipes up here to VT, he insisted on being allowed to deduct the shipping costs from his rent.

Also, he wound up in tens of thousands of credit card debt when he had his financial meltdown last year and went into collections on 5 cards, and my lawyer son was able to save him about $15,000 in settlements and preserve BIL's credit rating at the same time. Yet, when my son asked to borrow $400 for an emergency, BIL called him every day until my son paid him back.

I have no idea what my BILs stingy behavior has to do with economic systems, but I feel it ties in somehow.

Any other random thoughts? If capitalism were to be outlawed globally, what is your second choice of economic/political system?

Ok, I’ll bite. Tell me what “distributism” means to you in the context you posted about if it is not about taking more money from those who have it to give to those that do not have it.

Your BIL is that way because he never had to pay for the roof over his head. And while he is a lovely illustration of what happens when a human has little to no skin in the game of self support, an anecdote represents only one data point. I wouldnt base an entire economic system on his actions other than keeping in mind how and where humans will fail.

just a note to say your BIL continues to be saved by you guys, so why wouldnt he be all entitled to his own stuff? After all, your stuff is his stuff, but his stuff is his stuff.in his mind of course.

what the heck would be wrong with his credit rating taking a plunge? I would have wasted 0 time and effort on bailing him out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

If capitalism were to be outlawed globally, what is your second choice of economic/political system?

---

That is a fascinating question, and could well be the foundation of a cool sci-fi/adventure book series.

Consider the implications: "if capitalism were to be outlawed globally..." - that implies that there is some sort of global entity with the power and presumption to outlaw voluntary mutually-beneficial relationships between consenting adults. The ability and intent to use force to outlaw such a basic human liberty....

I think I would in such a circumstance feel compelled to resist.

As to what system I'd prefer, I'd prefer a libertarian anarcho-syndicalist setup, but again I suspect that only works in a sci-fi setting, because in my experience humans aren't particularly good at ruling even themselves, don't make rational decisions, often don't even act in their own interests, and are prone to the madness of crowds.

I think Plato probably ultimately had the best view on things, in The Republic, Book VIII. Worth reading even today.

I'm not sure what the article on selfishness and capitalism was about, I'm not sure what it was contrasting (which economies exactly?) nor did it seem to be based on much data at all except donations to charity and I'm not sure that making people unselfish really is an end in itself (but that is almost a spirituality discussion, and is the goal of policy really to engender some inner state of altruism or something regardless of any external measures?). If you have lots of unselfishness and still very high rates of poverty how much is actually achieved etc.?

Personally, I have always liked old soviet bloc people who grew up in the days it was still the USSR (before it turned to a ridiculously corrupt form of market economy). And that is as anecdotal as the article.

As for your brother in law and economic systems, I'm not sure it much relates. I mean I guess the question is what economic system could prevent people from becoming like your brother in law and I don't know if any could entirely. For some people who go down an unproductive road perhaps a system with lots of opportunities and forgiveness where mistakes didn't derail people permanently. Like say a person engaged in criminality or addiction when young then I guess you want systems to have lots of rehabilitation for such people so they don't go down a bad or at least unproductive road for life. I think such might have helped or might help the *permanently* dependent people that I know! If anything at all would that is! But I don't know that that is even your brother in laws problem, I don't know how he got that way :~). Maybe he is just somewhat off mentally, you have often mentioned that.

Quote:

---

If capitalism were to be outlawed globally, what is your second choice of economic/political system?

---

ideally? some form of direct worker ownership (worker co-ops, anachro-syndicalism etc.) with ecological awareness built in to everything. What would work practically? Quite honestly nothing modern is entirely sustainable, but some choices are less bad and less brutal than others is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

Personally, I have always liked old soviet bloc people who grew up in the days it was still the USSR (before it turned to a ridiculously corrupt form of market economy). And that is as anecdotal as the article.

---

https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...1930/01/21.htm

11 million dead.

Noone who I am referring to that grew up in the old Soviet union would have grown up under Stalin, that's a much older generation. We're talking maybe Brezhnev - Gorbachev.

Quote:

---

I have no idea what my BILs stingy behavior has to do with economic systems, but I feel it ties in somehow.

---

Your BIL is maximizing his capital. In a pure free market, people who didn't also benefit in a transaction with him, would cease to work with him. But he has you and your husband, who no matter what, continue to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

That is a fascinating question, and could well be the foundation of a cool sci-fi/adventure book series.

---

True--I love utopia/dystopia sci-fi books.

Quote:

---

Ok, I’ll bite. Tell me what “distribution” means to you in the context you posted about if it is not about taking more money from those who have it to give to those that do not have it.

---

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[4] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state capitalism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[5] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[6]

Quote:

---

I'd prefer a libertarian anarcho-syndicalist setup,

---

I am also reading more about anarchism in all its different flavors. I'm not opposed to it.

This point has come up in thought at different times in my life.

I remember reading about the system that some North American indigenous groups used. Resources were the common good; men were the hunters and defenders; women maintained the home base and elected women leaders who in turn chose the male leaders who made the decisions for the group or clan. If any of the male leaders didn't serve properly, the female leaders could simply decide to remove him. I read somewhere that a young Ben Franklin saw this process in action and it inspired him in his role in the future of the US.

Could this be made practical in our society at present? Individualism, personal greed and need for control is too strong; society is too manipulated by magnetic leaders, political, religious and military; people are too complacent wanting ease and comfort rather than personal efforts to take care of and protect themselves and others; human nature being what it is, will someone always try to bully others by any means?
So in answer, who was it that said something like - Democracy stinks but is better than every other government?

There was never an idealistic phase of Soviet Communism, apart from the poor deluded souls they referred to as “useful idiots”. From the time the Germans snuck Lenin into Russia as a sort of ideological disease vector, the Soviet state and it’s short-lived empire operated on treachery, murder and lies.

The people who complain about “unfettered capitalism” should consider how how life might be after the fetters are clamped on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

True--I love utopia/dystopia sci-fi books.



From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[4] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state capitalism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[5] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[6]

I am also reading more about anarchism in all its different flavors. I'm not opposed to it.

---

But catherine, who/what entity distributes the property that everyone has a fundamental right to own? It has to be the state, the gubmnt, right?

How is taking bae’s forest and vineyards and Commercial buildings away from him to give to Rob not taking from the rich and giving to those without? It is land not money, but not much difference if land is the means of production.

I think capitalism and representative democracy are just fine in a restricted or more pure form. People have been looking for ways to play the system for so long, maybe centuries, that it has gotten out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

But catherine, who/what entity distributes the property that everyone has a fundamental right to own? It has to be the state, the gubmnt, right?

---

And somebody has to run the government, right? You know, to protect the people too dumb to know their own best interests.

If you ask most people if they would sacrifice one of their children for the sake of ten other people’s children, you get a better understanding of why the collective model ultimately requires coercion even if it looks good on paper.

More and more I'm starting to believe that anarchism is the future, but mainly because humanity continues to rush headlong toward the climate cliff with no sign of slowing down. Governments around the world are proving remarkably impotent in dealing with the problem.

There will be two poles of anarchistic societies, ranging from relatively peaceful communities (who will nonetheless need to protect themselves) to Mad Max-style dystopias ruled by gangster warlords. Likely with many variations in between.

There are some folks trying to get a head start on the former type of community. They are called Transition Towns.

I think the best economic system is no economic system. This may sound funny, but it’s true. Ask yourself this question: “What is the best friendship system?” There is no ‘friendship system’ so we are free to choose who we wish to be friends with, as long as they wish to be our friend.

Economics deals with the exchange of goods and services. As long as this is done in an informed and voluntarily manner, it is no one else’s business. (As long as this causes no harm to others). This is best called ‘free-market economics’ because this term best expresses this economic philosophy. But it really just means you and someone else can do business as you wish, as long as no one is harmed in the process. Some people use the term ‘capitalism’ to mean free-market economics, but this is really improper usage. ‘Capitalism’ was a term used by Karl Marx, who used it pejoratively, and we know how Marxism turned out.

Any sustainable government must protect its citizens’ right to be free (as long as they don’t violate the freedom of others). Friendship, religious beliefs, speech, and economics, among many other things, are activities in a free country that all citizens have a right to express or participate in as they see fit.

I do understand the desire to have government provide certain subsidies to individuals (voters), such as educational vouchers, and medical vouchers, but these don’t stop us from having free economic markets. The only way to change the free market is through force, and that never works out in the long run.

So let me repeat my first sentence: The best economic system is no economic system.

the best friendship system is having no friends. maybe ... and in the same way the best economic system is ... that guy who lives in a cave.

Alan, in your "no economic system" how do you see businesses or startup enterprise acquiring capital? Would there be banks or a form of lending institutions, corporations, venture capital, or stock markets? Other issues aside, I have thought of the Colorado marijuana system of operation as having some advantage of excluding federally governed financial institutions due to legal issues. I don't expect it to last long, but so far it has encouraged small business entrepreneurs and mom and pop operations, and within some limits excluded big money mega corporations that need the stock market and/or a federal banking network. Whether it is pot or other products, I've seen some positive things about this, just as an alternative business model..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

But catherine, who/what entity distributes the property that everyone has a fundamental right to own? It has to be the state, the gubmnt, right?

How is taking bae’s forest and vineyards and. Ommercial buildings away from him to give to Robb not taling from the rich and giving to those without? It is land not money, but not much diff is land is the means of production.

---

No, IL, personal property is not handed out like beads off a Mardi Gras float--beads swiped from your neck or Alan's or bae's. :)

Private property, from what I understand, would be bought and sold just the way it is today. But rather than getting your mortgage from Chase or Wells Fargo, it would be from a local lender like George Bailey. Distributism seeks to empower people at all levels of society to be creative and free because it's social order from the bottom up. It prioritizes the freedoms of small communities over state-run bureaucracies. In a distributes society, workers would share in the production as well as the capital--so there would be more worker co-ops and private industry.

the distributists were not advocating the redistribution of “wealth” per se, though they believed that this would be one of the results of distributism. Instead, and the difference is crucial, they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production to as many people as possible. Belloc and the distributists drew the vital connection between the freedom of labor and its relationship with the other factors of production—i.e., land, capital, and the entrepreneurial spirit. The more that labor is divorced from the other factors of production the more it is enslaved to the will of powers beyond its control. In an ideal world every man would own the land on which, and the tools with which, he worked. In an ideal world he would control his own destiny by having control over the means to his livelihood. For Belloc, this was the most important economic freedom, the freedom beside which all other economic freedoms are relatively trivial. If a man has this freedom he will not so easily succumb to encroachments upon his other freedoms.

Believe me, I'm no expert, but I think it's an interesting alternative.

Catherine, this is so interesting.

Ever want to drop out of capitalism? Here is a 7 minute VICE documentary about doing just that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=351TKxYg7M4

It is directly the result of capitalism that we do not worry about starvation, and we can at any time exchange our labor for an improved standard of living. Giving the government control of a system of distribution is a dystopian nightmare. The free market works exactly because the threat of failure is always possible. Removing that by substituting government for business ownership ....well we have plenty of outrageous examples to make observations. Voluntary distributism is the only useful version needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

It is directly the result of capitalism that we do not worry about starvation, and we can at any time exchange our labor for an improved standard of living. Giving the government control of a system of distribution is a dystopian nightmare. The free market works exactly because the threat of failure is always possible. Removing that by substituting government for business ownership ....well we have plenty of outrageous examples to make observations. Voluntary distributism is the only useful version needed.

---

Capitalist apologetics! Defend the faith!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

It is directly the result of capitalism that we do not worry about starvation, and we can at any time exchange our labor for an improved standard of living. Giving the government control of a system of distribution is a dystopian nightmare.

---

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...2QjW6NvMqm0RW0

Okay, we can tell this kid that he's free at any time to exchange his labor for an improved standard of living and that any free food he's gotten from the government is a dystopian nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

No, IL, personal property is not handed out like beads off a Mardi Gras float--beads swiped from your neck or Alan's or bae's. :)

Private property, from what I understand, would be bought and sold just the way it is today. But rather than getting your mortgage from Chase or Wells Fargo, it would be from a local lender like George Bailey. Distributism seeks to empower people at all levels of society to be creative and free because it's social order from the bottom up. It prioritizes the freedoms of small communities over state-run bureaucracies. In a distributes society, workers would share in the production as well as the capital--so there would be more worker co-ops and private industry.

the distributists were not advocating the redistribution of “wealth” per se, though they believed that this would be one of the results of distributism. Instead, and the difference is crucial, they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production to as many people as possible. Belloc and the distributists drew the vital connection between the freedom of labor and its relationship with the other factors of production—i.e., land, capital, and the entrepreneurial spirit. The more that labor is divorced from the other factors of production the more it is enslaved to the will of powers beyond its control. In an ideal world every man would own the land on which, and the tools with which, he worked. In an ideal world he would control his own destiny by having control over the means to his livelihood. For Belloc, this was the most important economic freedom, the freedom beside which all other economic freedoms are relatively trivial. If a man has this freedom he will not so easily succumb to encroachments upon his other freedoms.

Believe me, I'm no expert, but I think it's an interesting alternative.

---

Oh I am just a little old librarian lady on a modest fixed income (doncha like me playing that victim role? Love my new freedom to be amoung the lower social order as defined by income! And a senior citizen now! So much victim identity here, what fun) so they wont come after me, just Alan and bae.

But back to Distributism: so, the idea is that I can offer mortgage money to someone else, and the someone else does not have to deal with the Big Conglomerate Evil Bank.

Ok, but I can do that today, in today’s current economic system. I can lend all the money I want to whomever I want, no one is stopping me. Or wait, does your Distributism model REQUIRE that I use my money to fund someone’s mortgage? What if I WANT to keep my cash in the mattress, do gubmnt goons force me to lend it out to my neighbor?

But see, I dont have enough freed up money that I want to lend to one risky endeavor, a mortgagee. That is why I (theoretically) organize with others into a financial lending institution to spread my risk around to many mortgagees. That is collectivism at its finest, me contributing a small percentage and owning a small percentage of the lending institution. I guess your model would not allow that. Seems silly to me.

I do love that movie and that vision of the local economy. I think we are moving in that direction in many areas, so I think change has to start there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Oh I am just a little old librarian lady on a modest fixed income (doncha like me playing that victim role? Love my new freedom to be amoung the lower social order as defined by income! And a senior citizen now! So much victim identity here, what fun) so they wont come after me, just Alan and bae.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

But back to Distributism: so, the idea is that I can offer mortgage money to someone else, and the someone else does not have to deal with the Big Conglomerate Evil Bank.

Ok, but I can do that today, in today’s current economic system. I can lend all the money I want to whomever I want, no one is stopping me. Or wait, does your Distributism model REQUIRE that I use my money to fund someone’s mortgage? What if I WANT to keep my cash in the mattress, do gubmnt goons force me to lend it out to my neighbor?

But see, I dont have enough freed up money that I want to lend to one risky endeavor, a mortgagee. That is why I (theoretically) organize with others into a financial lending institution to spread my risk around to many mortgagees. That is collectivism at its finest, me contributing a small percentage and owning a small percentage of the lending institution. I guess your model would not allow that. Seems silly to me.

---

You can leave me out of that scenario, three weeks from today I'll be joining the ranks of grey bearded senior citizens living on their accumulated life savings, thereby making me a victim of those capitalist institutions which, oddly enough, enabled me to do so.

I'm with you on the distributism thing, I don't see any reason people can't engage in that model as they wish and suspect the reason it isn't more widespread is that it is less efficient. I can only suspect that the real focus is to eliminate corporations and other large institutions consisting of many people investing in an efficient means of providing capital, resources and opportunity to others in hopes of eliminating income inequality. It seems like a step backwards to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Oh I am just a little old librarian lady on a modest fixed income (doncha like me playing that victim role? Love my new freedom to be amoung the lower social order as defined by income! And a senior citizen now! So much victim identity here, what fun) so they wont come after me, just Alan and bae.

---

For the past 20 years or so, I've been living on a very modest income, and often qualify to have Alan pay for my full medical insurance. I could get food stamps.

I strive to minimize taxable income, because I don't like my money being used to kill people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

But back to Distributism: so, the idea is that I can offer mortgage money to someone else, and the someone else does not have to deal with the Big Conglomerate Evil Bank.

Ok, but I can do that today, in today’s current economic system. I can lend all the money I want to whomever I want, no one is stopping me.

---

I've been doing this for decades - funding private mortgages to community members who can't for whatever reason deal with Evil Banks. (Though to be fair, our local Evil Bank, that writes most of the loans hereabouts for locals, has grown to 3 branches, one on each main island, and is owned by the community - evil local Rich Guys started the bank ages ago.)

I also provide business loans, and buy into local bond issues heavily.

Recently, I and some other Evil People, put together a fund to provide local mortgages on a bigger scale - the paperwork that had to be jumped through was incredible - it's simpler to do it 1-on-1, as soon as you organize, the barriers erected by our "helpful" government, clearly meant to protect the banking industry from competition, present obstacles.

Go team!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldhat

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...2QjW6NvMqm0RW0

Okay, we can tell this kid that he's free at any time to exchange his labor for an improved standard of living and that any free food he's gotten from the government is a dystopian nightmare.

---

A quick reverse image search shows this poor kid was living in East Africa/Somalia, and the photo was taken at a refugee camp in Kenya.

What caused his state of starvation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Ok, but I can do that today, in today’s current economic system. I can lend all the money I want to whomever I want, no one is stopping me. Or wait, does your Distributism model REQUIRE that I use my money to fund someone’s mortgage? What if I WANT to keep my cash in the mattress, do gubmnt goons force me to lend it out to my neighbor?

But see, I dont have enough freed up money that I want to lend to one risky endeavor, a mortgagee. That is why I (theoretically) organize with others into a financial lending institution to spread my risk around to many mortgagees. That is collectivism at its finest, me contributing a small percentage and owning a small percentage of the lending institution. I guess your model would not allow that. Seems silly to me.

---

OK, I worked 12 hours yesterday at a Pharma client's headquarters and then drove 5 hrs from Boston to home, and I haven't had my coffee yet, so I'm not going to come up with any intelligent arguments on my own yet, but this is a great article--"Distributism Is the Future" from The American Conservative. The #1 thing I want to impress is that it's the MEANS OF PRODUCTION that is being distributed with Distributism, NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. Key quotes:

As Chesterton put it in The Outline of Sanity: “The truth is that what we call Capitalism ought to be called Proletarianism. The point of it is not that some people have capital, but that most people only have wages because they do not have capital.”

When “Chesterbelloc”—as G.B. Shaw named the pair—talked about property, their focus was on capital goods, not consumption goods. They would not be impressed by arguments showing that, while American workers may be totally dispossessed of the means of production, at least they have 40-inch LCD televisions and smart phones.

distributism has a conservative aspect: it posits as a laudable end not some utopian experiment in untested social arrangements but a socio-economic system that we already know is workable, from both historical and contemporary evidence. Furthermore, because workers themselves are the owners of capital goods, they are less likely to be forced to abandon their communities and extended families in order to keep a good job. There of course may be efficiency trade-offs in choosing to stay put rather than moving to some distant but more profitable location to find some work. But under distributism, workers would evaluate these trade-offs for themselves, rather than having some global corporate entity send them, willy-nilly, thousands of miles from their family and community—or finding themselves suddenly unemployed, as the modern corporation is loath to give its workers even a moment’s notice before they are escorted out of their workplace and onto the street by corporate security.

I suggest the issue comes down to one of vision: do we see the common person as essentially a passive being, happiest giving up control of his or her own life to corporate and government experts, who will care for us with benefit packages and guaranteed levels of consumption goods? Or is the ideal for each person to exercise judgment over his or her life’s course to the maximum extent possible, accepting the risks that go along with independence? If the latter, then shifting our legal framework to enable more people to live independent lives is a risk worth taking.

I'll be back after a couple of cups of coffee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

OK, I worked 12 hours yesterday at a Pharma client's headquarters and then drove 5 hrs from Boston to home, and I haven't had my coffee yet, so I'm not going to come up with any intelligent arguments on my own yet, but this is a great article--"Distributism Is the Future" from The American Conservative. The #1 thing I want to impress is that it's the MEANS OF PRODUCTION that is being distributed with Distributism, NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. Key quotes:

As Chesterton put it in The Outline of Sanity: “The truth is that what we call Capitalism ought to be called Proletarianism. The point of it is not that some people have capital, but that most people only have wages because they do not have capital.”

When “Chesterbelloc”—as G.B. Shaw named the pair—talked about property, their focus was on capital goods, not consumption goods. They would not be impressed by arguments showing that, while American workers may be totally dispossessed of the means of production, at least they have 40-inch LCD televisions and smart phones.

distributism has a conservative aspect: it posits as a laudable end not some utopian experiment in untested social arrangements but a socio-economic system that we already know is workable, from both historical and contemporary evidence. Furthermore, because workers themselves are the owners of capital goods, they are less likely to be forced to abandon their communities and extended families in order to keep a good job. There of course may be efficiency trade-offs in choosing to stay put rather than moving to some distant but more profitable location to find some work. But under distributism, workers would evaluate these trade-offs for themselves, rather than having some global corporate entity send them, willy-nilly, thousands of miles from their family and community—or finding themselves suddenly unemployed, as the modern corporation is loath to give its workers even a moment’s notice before they are escorted out of their workplace and onto the street by corporate security.

I suggest the issue comes down to one of vision: do we see the common person as essentially a passive being, happiest giving up control of his or her own life to corporate and government experts, who will care for us with benefit packages and guaranteed levels of consumption goods? Or is the ideal for each person to exercise judgment over his or her life’s course to the maximum extent possible, accepting the risks that go along with independence? If the latter, then shifting our legal framework to enable more people to live independent lives is a risk worth taking.

I'll be back after a couple of cups of coffee.

---

How is the means of production not private property? Somebody owns all those stamp presses, excavators and ATMs. Would some giant version of the SBA do the distributing from the current owners to the new ones? Would the new owners have the right to buy each other out or employ each other on an at-will basis? What is to prevent, over time, the successful small scale capitalists from becoming large scale capitalists? Would this system require periodic re-leveling or would the tax code be used to prune back the people who did too well?

Would sole proprietors or workers collectives have the scope and capital to produce the smartphones or attack submarines or liability insurance we need?

Just one question I would have Of prospective distributists. Is it possible given the explosion of population to meet the expectations that “economy of scale” has created having gone to big agribusiness.....or any business monoplolies for that matter? When prioritizing “small scale and family business” how does one continue to support a population that has basically erupted as a result of capitalism?

I understand that Catherine is exploring a third option....not capitalism and not socialism/ communism and more importantly not a middle ground between the two. It seems to me to be a third option that does not lie between but tries to exist separately. Not in the governments hand and not in the elites hand. How that works...I must admit to shrugging my shoulders but I see examples from time to time....like small scale micro farms using self sustaining permaculture. I actually was on a path in that direction before deciding it was easier to sell my labor to get ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultralight

Capitalist apologetics! Defend the faith!

---

But that’s the beauty of capitalism! It doesn’t require faith in the competence of government or the benevolence of our fellow man to work. I would much rather stake my economic future on the billions of daily decisions being freely made than trust some elite backed up by a police apparatus to decide my best interests for me.