Distributism

By -
I was recently asked to give a talk to the Radcliffe Alumni Association on the topic of inequality in America. "We'd like," they said, "for you to give us the libertarian perspective on this issue."

"Well," I told them, "my own position is actually probably more distributist. But here's is my colleagues contact info..."

However, she turned them down. And so they came back to me and said, "Well, we'd love to get the distributist perspective on this topic!"

So, now, having put my foot in it, I've got to learn something about distributism!

Just warning you about what is coming up in this space. I'm starting on Chesterton tonight.

Comments

  1. Unknown4:12 PM

    I'm down to read what you have to say, Gene! I am extremely interested in Distributism!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott4:44 PM

    I tried to 'crash course' myself on distributism awhile back. The best book (well, essay) I found (IMO) was The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc.

    I found their criticisms interesting, but in the end I found it hard to get behind their economics. But maybe you'll see more in it than I did...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell2:00 PM

      "I found their criticisms interesting, but in the end I found it hard to get behind their economics."

      You don't need to support someone's economics to support their politics. One could just as easily think the LTV is correct and believe in laissez-faire.

      Delete
    2. Scott5:30 PM

      Not really getting what you mean. I think Adam Smith would have been pro-LTV and laissez-faire, but the point there was he was working with not so great theory. Bad theory would generally lead to bad (i.e., destructive, counterproductive, etc) policy.

      Belloc and Chesterton both proposed things which seemed to me (at the time) would be counterproductive and destructive. I could not get behind that policy, even if I do very much sympathize with their POV. In fact, I would probably advocate against the things they proposed.

      Or, more likely, wracked my brain for better solutions. But I would not have advocated for their platform, as I do not think it would have improved the situation.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more