Distributism Doubleplay

By -
My essay on modern distributism is online at The American Conservative.

And the Henry George School of Social Science has put up a web page for my upcoming talk.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell9:07 PM

    From the commenter named "Giles Nahal":
    Despite mentioning the communitarian side the underlying bias of the author towards something akin to state free anacho-capitalism badly distorts the actual content of CHesterton and Belloc’s political economic thought. Just as Adam Smith saw the role of the state as vital so too did Chesterton and his contemporaries. The author does not, nor are his examples wholly satisfying. Uber “employees” are even more exploited than their counterparts because of the very fact that many of them simply aren’t considered employees. In fact the authors perversion of distribution is such that it’s only conclusion is an economy where, instead of a few exploiting the many, everyone exploits everyone else; predation becomes the norm. Instead of people being an end in themselves they are instituionalised as means to an end in Kantian terms. It is universal capitalism in opposition to monopoly capitalism. Chesterton and Belloc come from a strong catholic tradition of political thought in which it could be said that “not all things possess an exchange value”. The author would do best to espouse his anarcho capitalism through manipulating the work of others.

    ReplyDelete

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