This is why I like "distributism". If someone's angry about "capitalism", it's a much healthier set of solutions. Basically the idea is to limit how much capital a person can get. Smaller businesses and communities rather than big business and government.
The distributist concerns are spot on. It's just a question of what's reasonably possible and how far is reasonably desirable. The wealth tax is in a sense "distributist" provided it's above some amount to allow for small businesses. And coopts are "distributist", could allow for employee owners and also employee nonowners.
A key difference is distributism doesn't redistribute wealth, and it allows for a market, doesn't regulate from the government. The idea is to establish guidelines and decentralisation, which the market can then flow within.
Socialism is in the opposite direction. Socialism is essentially slavery. Some people seem to believe the Austrians have all the answers, should never be questioned. Even for someone believing in their ideas, I believe it would be valuable for students to hear something more than libertarian vs. socialist.
People get angry at something in society and just assume that socialism is the sole alternative.
I might give up trying to explain concepts in blog posts. One mistake like that, and the post is ruined.
The Southern Agrarians and others have been critical of capitalism. And early on capitalism had critics in Europe. So, there is a conservative genre to be enjoyed.
These people are fucked up.....even worse...they vote!
ReplyDelete:) :(
DeleteThis is why I like "distributism". If someone's angry about "capitalism", it's a much healthier set of solutions. Basically the idea is to limit how much capital a person can get. Smaller businesses and communities rather than big business and government.
ReplyDeleteThe distributist concerns are spot on. It's just a question of what's reasonably possible and how far is reasonably desirable. The wealth tax is in a sense "distributist" provided it's above some amount to allow for small businesses. And coopts are "distributist", could allow for employee owners and also employee nonowners.
A key difference is distributism doesn't redistribute wealth, and it allows for a market, doesn't regulate from the government. The idea is to establish guidelines and decentralisation, which the market can then flow within.
Socialism is in the opposite direction. Socialism is essentially slavery. Some people seem to believe the Austrians have all the answers, should never be questioned. Even for someone believing in their ideas, I believe it would be valuable for students to hear something more than libertarian vs. socialist.
People get angry at something in society and just assume that socialism is the sole alternative.
Sorry, I meant death tax, not wealth tax.
DeleteI might give up trying to explain concepts in blog posts. One mistake like that, and the post is ruined.
The Southern Agrarians and others have been critical of capitalism. And early on capitalism had critics in Europe. So, there is a conservative genre to be enjoyed.
Socialism needn't be the sole alternative.
People get angry at something in society and just assume that socialism is the sole alternative.
DeleteProbably and I have never thought of this.
Sorry, I meant death tax, not wealth tax.
DeleteThat's funny as I assumed such. :)