Distributism Debate
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Distributism Debate The Distributism Debate Dane J. Weber Donald P. Goodman III Eds. GP Goretti Publications Dozenal numeration is a system of thinking of numbers in twelves, rather than tens. Twelve is much more versatile, having four even divisors—2, 3, 4, and 6—as opposed to only two for ten. This means that such hatefulness as “0.333. ” for 1/3 and “0.1666. ” for 1/6 are things of the past, replaced by easy “0;4” (four twelfths) and “0;2” (two twelfths). In dozenal, counting goes “one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, elv, dozen; dozen one, dozen two, dozen three, dozen four, dozen five, dozen six, dozen seven, dozen eight, dozen nine, dozen ten, dozen elv, two dozen, two dozen one. ” It’s written as such: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, X, E, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1X, 1E, 20, 21... Dozenal counting is at once much more efficient and much easier than decimal counting, and takes only a little bit of time to get used to. Further information can be had from the dozenal societies (http:// www.dozenal.org), as well as in many other places on the Internet. © 2006 (11E2) Dane J. Weber and Donald P. Goodman III, Version 3.0. All rights reserved. This document may be copied and distributed freely, provided that it is done in its entirety, including this copyright page, and is not modified in any way. Goretti Publications http://gorpub.freeshell.org [email protected] No copyright on this work is intended to in any way derogate from the copyright holders of any individual part of this work. Cover photographs: “Ear of Corn,” by Martin Birkin; “September in The For- est,” by Larisa Koshkina; “Mine Shaft,” by Circe Denyer; and “Smokestacks” by Julie Gentry, all released by their authors to the public domain, from http://www.publicdomainpictures.net. Deo meo Iesu Christo Domino magno et Pastori bono cuius Cor Sacratissimum passum est propter me et omnes homines in remissionem peccatorum pro instituente regnum sociale eius et Matri Suæ, Mariæ semper Virgini, et Cordi Immaculatæ eius et caræ Catharinæ uxori meæ et Donaldo Patricio Quarto filio meo et Ludovicæ Magdalenæ filiæ meæ hoc opus dedicatum —Donaldus Patricius— Contents Introduction ix Trashing “Chesterbelloc” James Fitzpatrick ...................... 1 Capitalism & Catholic Economics John Sharpe ......................... 5 The Justice of Distributism: A Reply to John Clark Thomas Storck ....................... 7 Capitalism and Catholic Economics John Sharpe ......................... 13 The Capitalist Response John Clark ......................... 29 Letter to the Editor Br. Alexis Bugnolo ..................... 3E Three Catholic Cheers for Capitalism Thomas E. Woods, Jr. ................... 43 What Does It Profit a Man. ? Br. Alexis Bugnolo ..................... 4E Economics and Profit: A Final Word Thomas E. Woods, Jr. ................... 57 Liberal Economics vs. Catholic Truth John Sharpe ......................... 5E Conclusion 83 Appendices Morality and Economic Law Dr. Thomas Woods ..................... 87 Preface to Amintore Fanfani’s Catholicism, Protes- tantism, and Capitalism Directors of IHS Press ................... X1 References 101 Introduction istributism is not well understood even within the Catholic world; outside of that world, it is barely, if at all, known. However, Dit is much more important to bring Catholics to an understand- ing of this economic system, intended to be a fulfilment of Catholic social teachings, than to ingratiate the theory with those outside of the Catholic world. Therefore, this assembly of articles was created, in an attempt to bring Catholics to a better understanding of distributism, the only economic system which attempts to conform to the principles of Catholic thought. In 2002, in the revered traditionalist publication Latin Mass Maga- zine, John Clark penned an attack on distributism as explicated by one of its chief early proponents, Hilaire Belloc. Capitalists hailed it as a long-needed vindication of their principles against distributist ignorance; distributists decried it as ignorant and badly reasoned. Both began to address the matter on the Internet, and an informal debate quickly arose. This is a collection of most of the articles entered into that debate. Naturally, many more were written, in many different places; some this editor knows about, some he has never seen. But these are the primary combatants, and consequently the debate ought to be judged primarily on their terms. There is great wisdom and perspicacity in these pages, and great insight can be gained into the positions of both sides. John Clark and Thomas Woods provide as coherent a Catholic defense of capitalism as is possible; Br. Bugnolo gives some insightful considerations of profit, and John Sharpe offers a brilliant defense of distributism and refutation of the Clark-Woods theses. Both together provide an excellent cross-section of arguments designed for laymen, by which the concerned Catholic can make an informed decision regarding the economic question. In editing these texts, I have limited myself entirely to typographical and spelling errors; I have altered no wording and made only minimal changes in formatting (for example, the small caps in Br. Alexis’s ix x letter). While this does leave the text with a somewhat inconsistent feel, I believe that this allows the authors’ words to reach the reader with more authenticity and with all their original force. With that, the reader is left to his task, and the editor prays that the blessing of Almighty God might come upon him and guide him in this work. Donald P. Goodman III Editor Trashing “Chesterbelloc” James Fitzpatrick don’t know who coined the term “Chesterbelloc” to describe the economic theories of G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, the famed ICatholic writers of the first half of the 20th century, but it is an apt figure of speech. Chesterton’s and Belloc’s views on the economy were closely aligned. The term commonly used to label their vision is “distributism.” It is a vision that many have argued reflects the economic insights found in the papal social encyclicals, and, for that reason, has been highly praised over the years by Catholic intellectuals—those who take the Church’s social teachings seriously, at any rate. But there is a curi- ous disconnect in this phenomenon: Many of these Catholic intellectuals are also proponents of free-market economic theory, “movement” con- servatives. They proceed as if distributism reinforces their laissez-fair capitalist views. One can see why they would think that. Chesterton and Belloc were opposed to socialism. They wanted to make privately owned businesses as widespread as possible, seeking, in Belloc’s words, “a society in which property is well distributed and so large a proportion of the families in the State severally OWN and therefore control the means of production as to determine the general tone of society.” But it is not that simple. In the Spring 2002 issue of The Latin Mass, John Clark, the President and CEO of a financial group in Virginia, shows us why. He goes so far as to argue that “distributism is actually inconsistent with the traditional teaching of the Church.” Clark focuses on an element of distributism that is frequently overlooked. He illustrates that Belloc’s method of keeping property ownership widespread was to employ a severely progressive tax system to make it impossible for a business to expand beyond a certain level. Clark summarizes Belloc’s views: “If individuals approached financial levels beyond those viewed 1 2 Trashing “Chesterbelloc” by the state as reasonable, they would be taxed so they were no longer wealthy. In the eyes of Belloc, property would eventually be ‘more fairly’ distributed.” Clark quotes Belloc: “To control two such (stores) may involve but a small tax, to control three a larger one in proportion; and so on, with the curve rising steeply until the ownership of, say, a dozen in the territory over which the Government has power becomes economically impossible.” (Restoration of Property, p. 69.) We must face the facts: Distributism cannot be made to work without a vast increase in state power. In Belloc’s scheme, the central government will determine how much is “enough” for an individual or a business to own, and then tax any accumulation of wealth beyond that level at a punitive rate. That is how business ownership will be kept widespread. State power is the lash, the redistributor of wealth. This is where Clark feels that Belloc moves into opposition to the Church’s teaching on private property rights: “Distributism places such definitive limits on private property that private ownership actually ceases to exist. Under distributism, it is not my decision to whom I can sell or rent my land; it is a decision of the state. Under distributism, if a merchant with three stores wished to purchase or rent my land, the state would intercede and prevent this transaction, and every transaction like it. The laws of distributism do not allow me to make private decisions about my property, and when this right ceases to exist, I no longer possess private property.” Thus, says Clark, the “traditional teaching of the Church is trampled upon by distributism, and in the final analysis private property ceases to exist, as ownership and use essentially become that of the state.” “Distributism violates the fundamental right of private property as traditionally taught by the Church from the time of St. Augustine to the present day.” Further, says Clark, “The distributist state removes the profit motive by placing limits on the amount of wealth that one can earn,” thereby killing the profit motive that leads to economic growth and the generation of jobs. Clark buttresses his case by quoting extensively from medieval theologians such as St. Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Francisco Suarez and St.