Comments on: Beyond Capitalism and Socialism: Rebuilding an American Economy Focused on Family and Community

By: Williamsyolanda82

Williamsyolanda82 — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:19:00 +0000

This whole article is very informative. In fact I want to write a report on it for school. I totally agree with everything that is stated her in this article. The question is what can we as a people do about it? If enough people uphol these true beliefs there won’t be much the Buisness Government can do to change the minds of many Americans who demand a change.

By: Edwards Higgins

Edwards Higgins — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 02:04:00 +0000

If you want to eliminate taxes, start your business with an offshore corp and Foundation. Then set up offshore bank accounts. If you set this up correctly you will have little or no tax liability.

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:44:05 +0000

Maria, I don’t know. Is there any business you can practice without using public services? Police, fire, roads, courts, the army, food inspection, money, etc.? Such a business should be exempt from any and all taxation.

By: Maria Donaldson

Maria Donaldson — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 20:17:18 +0000

Is their any business that will not require us to pay taxes? On every business that number one concern is taxes.

– Maria Donaldson

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:44:40 +0000

This does not excite me but this is what the IRS has to say.

The tax statutes were re-codified by an Act of Congress on February 10, 1939 as the “Internal Revenue Code” (later known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1939″). The 1939 Code was published as volume 53, Part I, of the United States Statutes at Large and as title 26 of the United States Code. Subsequent permanent tax laws enacted by the United States Congress updated and amended the 1939 Code.

ALL taxes are theft. The government will continue to take more money from the rich AND middle class as long as we are okay with the idea of services provided at the barrel of a gun. Propaganda is the only thing propping up the idea of government.

By: There’s A Blond Wondering Around Georgetown « Around The Sphere

There’s A Blond Wondering Around Georgetown « Around The Sphere — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:35:48 +0000

[...] State to trim its excesses. What Blond perceives – echoing the discerning analysis of Distributist thinkers such as Chesterton or Hillaire Belloc in his penetrating work The Servile State or Robert [...]

By: Wessexman

Wessexman — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:25:07 +0000

Well I do generally disagree with “big gov’t distributism”, I think those who believe in it need to read Kevin Carson’s work and those who have influenced him like Rothbard and Marx’s history(I don’t think much of most of the rest of their work except Marx’s business cycle theory.), the New left historians like Gabriel Kolko who write on big business and the state, the likes of Joseph Stromberg and Roy Child who write on similar topics but from the American style libertarian angle as well as J.A Hobson, the Hammonds, Kirkpatrick Sale and others. This basically shows capitalism and corporate-capitalism are and always have been massively statist and rely on the state and therefore it is better to dismantle this apparatus than try and take it over.

However there is a difference between small gov’t distributism and the complete laissez faire or free market ideal. I don’t believe in the free market as an autonomous thing but I do think overbearing, centralised gov’t is not a good thing either and share a general small gov’t ethos but that doesn’t mean I will not be prepared to use measured, cautious and as far as possible decentralised state policies to further distributism.

On Agrarianism I partly agree with you although the work on biodynamic, organic farming by the likes of John Jeavons can seeminlgy get amazing results from very little land. However the ideal of Agrarianism and the yeomanry is one I consider key, even today. This does not mean, I stress again, Ludditism or a complete back to the land movement but it does mean a much larger place for the small farmer, a strong and numerous yeoman farmer class and a better rural-urban balance. This seems very much necessary for a strong, healthy and traditional society as far as I can see as many great statesman from Solon to PiusXI have pointed out.

By: Wessexman

Wessexman — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:12:35 +0000

If you’ve never heard of Carson here’s his site:

http://www.mutualist.org.

Check in particular these works:

http://www.mutualist.org./id4.html
http://www.mutualist.org./id47.html (the second part of this is the important one.)
http://www.mutualist.org./id114.html

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:09:01 +0000

Wessexman,

Big-government distributism is only advocated by some since Chesterton himself said he had not definite plan for how the redistribution would take place. Allan’s article here, as John pointed out, lists 12 out of 17 steps that involve big government involvement. Most distributists are small government, but the article here takes a different track. You are right to point out that Allan does seem to be in the minority here.

It is also worth noting that many objections to distributism seem to be centered around an assumption “big government” is needed to redistribute the property.

The reason why I am less agrarian than mainstream distributsits is that having grown up on the East Coast, I know all too well that many people in America do not have the access to even grow a garden, much less grow enough to eat or trade. If we want to mobilize as many people as we can, leading with an agrarian front or making farming a big focus immediately alienates those in cities or where land is so expensive they are unable to purchase (i.e. redistribute) it. Consider how many displaced workers – those most likely to be swayed to Socialism and hit hardest by the economic state – are largely city dwellers unable to start gardening, much less a farm.

I’m not saying to abandon the agrarian tactics in the strategy; growing your own food (if you are able to) is a simple step that increases one’s independence and strikes at the big box merchants at the same time, and is a good idea to promote. However, 70+ years after the Chesterbelloc wrote, a much smaller percentage of the population is able to, particularly since so many got suckered into living in hives. :)

By: Wessexman

Wessexman — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:44:09 +0000

Paul firstly distributism generally doesn’t posit a large role for the state in distributing property, in fact it tends to want the state to interfere less. However it certainly doesn’t believe we need to stick to the laissez faire ideal completely and that measured and decentralist policies which promote distributism are acceptable. For instance a georgist land value tax replacing most other taxes, particularly when it is collected locally, is perfectly acceptable.

Secondly the Agrarian focus of Chesterbelloc is, imho, a very good thing. Agriculture is key to human civilisation, it is the archetype of all crafts and a strong, healthy and numerous class of yeoman farms are a necessary support for any healthy and free state. We require a revivial of small agriculture and a better rural-urban balance, even today but that doesn’t mean any necessary Ludditism or forcing everyone back to the land, it just means a more healthy and balanced idea of agriculture.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:11:55 +0000

I used to consider myself a distributist, but my views vary a bit. I classify myself as a Microcapitalist (see MicrocapitalistManifesto.com)

I’m strongly disagree on the state’s need to redistribute the existing productive property – that will either happen on its own or the people will take one of several routes to accomplish that goal.

Another point I disagree with the mainstream distributists is the agrarian focus. Just because Belloc and Chesterton lived in a time of transition does not mean every citizen must take up some sort of farming activity to have productive property.

Furthermore, mainstream distributism neglects new areas of property, namely intellectual property and capital formation.

Microcapitalism is focused on encouraging small business and personal productive property, the protection of workers’ capital (by them owning it, not the state or the employer) and small government. It cannot be legislated, it must be a ground-up revolution from the people taking small steps personally.

To this end, there is a great many steps that can be taken by individual citizens, independent of the state, that do not require rezonng and farming activity.

By: Wessexman

Wessexman — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:23:47 +0000

To John Wilson and others who have objected to the use of the state in distributism. Me and most distributists are quite anti-state, we know the centralised state usually mucks up and that it undermines community, family and such associations. However we are also not classical liberals and certainly not radical free marketeers in the sense we don’t object to any interference of the state in the market on principle and we tend to hold the common sense position that the state can achieve a limited amount of things, more than the nightwatchman ideal would allow, in the economy and society. So sure we need to radically scale back the state and we need to decentralise gov’t but that doesn’t mean we have to asrcibe to the complete free market ideology, something which is American style libertarian/classical liberal and not conservative or traditionalist, and can’t support even limited, well thought out state action(and I mean that beyond simply nightwatchman.) aimed at creating a more distributist society.

By: Brandon W

Brandon W — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:42:47 +0000

I think there’s room for more modernization of the proposed economic model; beyond productive land and small shops could be a opportunities for self-employed knowledge workers to work in free-forming and ever-changing networks to produce an economic output. However, the premise is sound, and the criticisms (and warnings) are both prescient and worth serious consideration.

By: Steve Berg

Steve Berg — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:49:09 +0000

There have been some programs in Iowa that try to match up landless people who want to farm with landowners who for one reason or another cannot or do not want to farm their property. One of my cousins in southwestern Iowa was in a situation like this until his health gave out.

I also thank Allan for writing this perceptive and intriguing essay. Crony capitalism and crony socialism are nearly identical twins, and efforts along the lines Allan describes here, similar to Jefferson’s Ward Republics, are one of the few viable ways for us to crawl out of the financial abyss now facing us.

By: Are factories (mostly) obsolete? Cities? « Tipsy Teetotaler

Are factories (mostly) obsolete? Cities? « Tipsy Teetotaler — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:10:38 +0000

[...] recall him addressing this. But Allan Carlson has addressed it, at least briefly, in his keynote address I praised yesterday: While praising the modern “machine” tool, Borsodi condemned the “huge” [...]

By: John Médaille

John Médaille — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:37:37 +0000

Dirk, I think the method of answering your question is rather straightforward: it is simply to imagine that you are a young man possibly interested in farming and then ask, “What would it take to induce me to farm this land?”

In Taiwan, the answer was simply to give the land to the farmers in return for an amount equal to 25% of the current crop for 10 years, after which they would own the land. But that was a situation of existing, experienced farmers who had been paying 50-70% of the crop forever, on a tenancy-at-will arrangement. The explosion of productivity on the farm was sufficient to finance Taiwan’s entry into the industrialized world without a lot of foreign “aid.”

Your situation is different, but the question is the same. If you can answer it for young D.W., you can answer it for Sam and Jack and John.