Distributism

[Percivale]

I think it's time Americans look at distributism, instead of seeing capitalism and socialism as the only options. Its basic tenet is that the value of land and other raw materials which are not produced by labor, just exist, should be shared equally, with the goal of everyone being able to own their own home and means of livelihood. A simple way this might be implemented would be if government took properties that are abandoned or repossessed and giving them to those who don't own property at random to those who apply and qualify. Other than that be mostly libertarian.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think it's time Americans look at distributism, instead of seeing capitalism and socialism as the only options. Its basic tenet is that the value of land and other raw materials which are not produced by labor, just exist, should be shared equally, with the goal of everyone being able to own their own home and means of livelihood. A simple way this might be implemented would be if government took properties that are abandoned or repossessed and giving them to those who don't own property at random to those who apply and qualify. Other than that be mostly libertarian.

Are you going to purchase and operate a jet airline company yourself?
Or build a factory with your distribution? Factories do employ people.
You can make friends with the millions they send you.

 

[rambot]

An a borderline exclusively agrarian atmosphere, you'd have something. Today's day and age; that is simply too complex.

 

[Percivale]

An a borderline exclusively agrarian atmosphere, you'd have something. Today's day and age; that is simply too complex.

A pure or extreme distributist system would not work well here, of course. But that doesn't mean that adding some distributism in places it would work is a bad idea. You've got to have balance. Pure capitalism leads to increasing economic inequality, since those with the money can buy more and more of the capital--decreasing others' opportunity to get ahead, while pure socialism leads to universal poverty, since it rewards poor economic decisions and reduces the incentive to work hard or smart. Neither is sustainable. Distributism retains the motivating power of the free market, while rebalancing the distribution of capital so that equal opportunity continues. There are many smaller ways it could be implemented that do not involve divvying up farmland, forest, and mines to people that aren't able to make good use of them. A major issue facing poor people today is the high rent and difficulty buying homes. If only the homes that are repossessed for back taxes or delinquent mortgages were bought cheaply by the government and exterior, plumbing, heating, and electrical issues fixed, then given to people who apply for them and meet criteria, that would not only give the lucky recipient a home, but would also have some effect on the market that might reduce rents for others.

 

[Desk trauma]

Can you point to any working examples of your economic system?

 

[Percivale]

Can you point to any working examples of your economic system?

Haven't looked extensively. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's rare, since it neither benefits the wealthy, nor keeps people dependent on government so they'll vote democrat.

 

[farout]

I think it's time Americans look at distributism, instead of seeing capitalism and socialism as the only options. Its basic tenet is that the value of land and other raw materials which are not produced by labor, just exist, should be shared equally, with the goal of everyone being able to own their own home and means of livelihood. A simple way this might be implemented would be if government took properties that are abandoned or repossessed and giving them to those who don't own property at random to those who apply and qualify. Other than that be mostly libertarian.[/QUO

Giving property away, means a person as placed no actual personal value into to it, and when things get hard they are more apt to just chuck it.

 

[Percivale]

A home has value to a person no matter whether they've paid a lot for it or not, cause everyone needs one. But I would be in favor of them paying something for it, and something coming out at tax time; about enough to cancel out the earned income credit. Also interior work like painting and flooring would be up to them. I think that's a lot better than them relying on government assistance for rent.

 

[Desk trauma]

Haven't looked extensively.

You're proposing a drastic change in the structure of the economy and vast expansion of the power of the state to confiscate property but haven't even looked into if it can actually work?

 

[farout]

A home has value to a person no matter whether they've paid a lot for it or not, cause everyone needs one. But I would be in favor of them paying something for it, and something coming out at tax time; about enough to cancel out the earned income credit. Also interior work like painting and flooring would be up to them. I think that's a lot better than them relying on government assistance for rent.

I worked for the Housing Authority of Maricopa County, AZ. in mid 1980.The rent was based on income, mainly poor families who needed a place to live. There were some older adults who really took pride in their home. But by far the majority destroyed what they could, and lived like animals. I had to clean out the mess when those ungrateful people moved out. They trashed everything they could. There were some who were very respectful of the rules, and kept their children controlled and watched over them and kept their homes very nice. The huge difference in those who lived in these homes? The ones who had a job and worked. Most always those who had no job and had either free or a large assistance for food, housing and health care, were the ones who gave the most problems.

What does this say about GIVING people anything of significant value?

 

[Chany]

I think it's time Americans look at distributism, instead of seeing capitalism and socialism as the only options. Its basic tenet is that the value of land and other raw materials which are not produced by labor, just exist, should be shared equally, with the goal of everyone being able to own their own home and means of livelihood. A simple way this might be implemented would be if government took properties that are abandoned or repossessed and giving them to those who don't own property at random to those who apply and qualify. Other than that be mostly libertarian.

So socialism.

 

[farout]

So socialism.

Share the wealth and goods, but not the responsible or the cost involved. Free is the word for the Me always first generation!

 

[Desk trauma]

Free is the word for the Me always first generation!

Indeed, bloody boomers ruining everything.

 

[farout]

Indeed, bloody boomers ruining everything.

Absolutely NOT. Every generation that has ever eisted has had people that takes and takes, never giving back. I meant no disrespect to any one generation.

 

[ScottA]

I think it's time Americans look at distributism, instead of seeing capitalism and socialism as the only options. Its basic tenet is that the value of land and other raw materials which are not produced by labor, just exist, should be shared equally, with the goal of everyone being able to own their own home and means of livelihood. A simple way this might be implemented would be if government took properties that are abandoned or repossessed and giving them to those who don't own property at random to those who apply and qualify. Other than that be mostly libertarian.

We have that already...it's called welfare.

 

[Desk trauma]

Absolutely NOT. Every generation that has ever eisted has had people that takes and takes, never giving back. I meant no disrespect to any one generation.

My point, coated thickly in snark, was that every generation looking upon those that will come after them despairs over what they will accomplish.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think it's time Americans look at distributism, instead of seeing capitalism and socialism as the only options. Its basic tenet is that the value of land and other raw materials which are not produced by labor, just exist, should be shared equally, with the goal of everyone being able to own their own home and means of livelihood. A simple way this might be implemented would be if government took properties that are abandoned or repossessed and giving them to those who don't own property at random to those who apply and qualify. Other than that be mostly libertarian.

Thomas Paine suggested distributism in his pamphlet 'The Rights of Man'. All four of Thomas Paine's works should be read, they are not long in terms of word count, the pages are short.

Thomas Paine was a scientist and wanted a simple method for running an economy and a political system and decided land should be distributed equally among the population, but that people could hand it's cultivation over to those skilled in farming and the farmers would gain economies of scale.

I would suggest that for the 'rent' of this land from another, the farmers would pay into a central fund distributing the money to everyone who had contributed their share of the land to the farmers. That's my version of his idea, his was to redistribute all land when someone died.

 

[MorkandMindy]

But what actually happened of course was the governor handed the fertile land next to the rivers to his friends who leased it to poor colonialists and got rent off them, so had many times the wealth of the poor colonialists, for no work.

And that system continues today.


It is far more grievous in England because permission to build is very restricted and mostly it is the big landowners who are allowed to build, in South East England the resulting building may sell for between five and seven times the construction cost.

A house where I lived would cost 65,000 to build and sell for 400,000. Land itself costs very little, it is gaining the building permit that turns it into gold.

If it is an office building then a firm may work there many years, eventually close for whatever reason, and another firm moves in and so on. Those who work in the office may pay rent or a mortgage.

In the end pretty well all the money made ends up in the hands of the land owners.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The big landowners were able to sit in the House of Lords and grant themselves exemptions from the taxes.

As the US moves further to the right, some people actually dispute that, so I'll say 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer' maybe that sounds better.

the US with the constitutional amendment 'Corporations United' which in keeping with the usual 1984 style 'double speak' language is called 'Citizens United', allows the very wealthy corporations to pay any amount to advertise their prefered candidate.

They have available hundreds of times as much money as the middle and lower classes have for campaign contributions, so basically they will run the show.

They will choose who will sit in our house of lords and who gets tax exemptions.

The US has always been somewhat like that, that is why the revolts were brought to an end and attention refocused onto the evil British and the War of Independence started in the first place. It was no different a century later when the Civil War was described as 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight'.

 

[Percivale]

You're proposing a drastic change in the structure of the economy and vast expansion of the power of the state to confiscate property but haven't even looked into if it can actually work?

No I'm not. Probably you only read the first line of my post. I'm firmly against any confiscation of property. I want a mostly libertarian economy, with only a minor amount of redistribution of property.