Very good interview by Mars Hill Audio about the effects of Progressivism on Democracy. The intro is a little long, but the interview itself is fantastic and there's a lot of stuff in here that applies to Distributivism/Communitarianism.
Mars Hill Interview on Democracy and Progressivism
Showing posts with label distributivist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distributivist. Show all posts
Monday, April 19, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Philosophy: To Strive and Flourish
Earlier, I wrote a blog post in which I advocated for decentralized government, in order to counter the dangers of fanatical Utopianism. However, even if the dangers of a centralized Utopia could be countered, it might still not be the ideal, for it remains possible that a necessary component of human flourishing includes a necessary component of achieving flourishing for oneself, which is what I believe the anti-Utopian is getting at when they claim that humans need striving. In the sphere of the virtues, for example, justice might demand that the rich man care for widows and orphans who cannot care for themselves, but it is important that this is a decision of his will. The law could force the rich man to take this action, and this might externally look the same as the case of the one who chooses to care for them, but this justice would be part of the system and not part of the rich man’s life. Thus, he would not be flourishing as an individual, and the law might actually be preventing him from becoming a just man.
Similarly, a man eating food he did not earn does not get the maximum good available from the meal. Certainly, he is nourished, his basic physical need being cared for, but the benefit of the satisfaction of having earned the meal is missing. Ultimately, a hungry man unable to work might need to be fed from the proceeds of another man’s labor, but if a centralized power gives every man food they have not worked for, they have the satisfaction taken from them by default. Instead, it seems better if help comes from those in immediate contact with the hungry man, who can give him only the help he needs and, if possible, help him to stand on his own that he might achieve the fully flourishing life [1]. Since, as mentioned before, a real Utopia would be the best environment for human flourishing, even if that included striving, the best a centralized power could do to create Utopia would be to do nothing, instead leaving it to individuals and local communities.
At this point, it may be asked why I have included local communities and not simply left everything to the individual. After all, if achieving something for oneself is part of flourishing, doesn’t local community interfere in this just as much as central government? However, this is not the case. First, the community is sensitive to the needs of the individual. The work put into a meal is not the only important part of it, other factors such as its satisfaction of hunger are also extremely important. It is better for a man who cannot work to eat a meal he has not worked for, than for him to starve. Ultimately, a local community is better suited to know when he needs charity, and when he needs rehabilitation. Also, in most cases an individual contributes to his community in ways he cannot necessarily contribute to a centralized system, and these are often intangible. The sickly widow may be unable to labor for her bread, but may provide an important area of emotional support in her community. The awareness of this in herself and her community creates a sense of reciprocity and this in turn provides the missing component of satisfaction. As a centralized body is necessarily detached from individuals, it cannot operate in terms of such intangible benefits and thus the component of reciprocity is removed.
[1] I originally considered this idea earlier in my blog, but it was recently brought to my attention that it is explored in the Thomistic principle of subsidiarity. I have not yet had the chance to study into this, so the arguments for it are essentially my own.
Note: As with my last post, this one was taken largely from an essay which I wrote for school (the same essay as the last one in fact)
Similarly, a man eating food he did not earn does not get the maximum good available from the meal. Certainly, he is nourished, his basic physical need being cared for, but the benefit of the satisfaction of having earned the meal is missing. Ultimately, a hungry man unable to work might need to be fed from the proceeds of another man’s labor, but if a centralized power gives every man food they have not worked for, they have the satisfaction taken from them by default. Instead, it seems better if help comes from those in immediate contact with the hungry man, who can give him only the help he needs and, if possible, help him to stand on his own that he might achieve the fully flourishing life [1]. Since, as mentioned before, a real Utopia would be the best environment for human flourishing, even if that included striving, the best a centralized power could do to create Utopia would be to do nothing, instead leaving it to individuals and local communities.
At this point, it may be asked why I have included local communities and not simply left everything to the individual. After all, if achieving something for oneself is part of flourishing, doesn’t local community interfere in this just as much as central government? However, this is not the case. First, the community is sensitive to the needs of the individual. The work put into a meal is not the only important part of it, other factors such as its satisfaction of hunger are also extremely important. It is better for a man who cannot work to eat a meal he has not worked for, than for him to starve. Ultimately, a local community is better suited to know when he needs charity, and when he needs rehabilitation. Also, in most cases an individual contributes to his community in ways he cannot necessarily contribute to a centralized system, and these are often intangible. The sickly widow may be unable to labor for her bread, but may provide an important area of emotional support in her community. The awareness of this in herself and her community creates a sense of reciprocity and this in turn provides the missing component of satisfaction. As a centralized body is necessarily detached from individuals, it cannot operate in terms of such intangible benefits and thus the component of reciprocity is removed.
[1] I originally considered this idea earlier in my blog, but it was recently brought to my attention that it is explored in the Thomistic principle of subsidiarity. I have not yet had the chance to study into this, so the arguments for it are essentially my own.
Note: As with my last post, this one was taken largely from an essay which I wrote for school (the same essay as the last one in fact)
Friday, April 9, 2010
Politics: The Dangers of Utopia and the Boon of Inefficiency
It is my firm conviction, brought about by the observation of history, that the dreams of Utopians are far more likely to drag us to hell than to build a better world. From Hitler’s Reich to the terrorism of Bin Laden, many of histories greatest evils have come from the pursuit of the perfect world. Really, Utopianism is a kind of hate. It identifies what I see as the perfect state for human kind, it becomes intoxicated with that vision, and then it cannot help but make that the end of all action, and in so doing come to see any who stand in its way as monsters and sinners. We all hope for a better world, that is our nature, and it is a fine thing to strive for that world, to work at it with sweat and tears, and most of all with love. But, when we try and make that world, to forge it by power, to force it on others for their own good, then we become Utopians and we soon become monsters.
The temptation for the Utopian is the temptation to think that the best way to achieve the ideal human circumstances is through exercising the influence of some strong centralized power, most notably that of government. In general, this view seems to arise from the appeal of efficiency. Where a thousand local agencies might work at cross purposes, sabotaging the formation of Utopia, a single central organization can organize these efforts and thereby seemingly better achieve the goal. However, it is precisely this efficiency that makes the temptation to centralization a liability.
At its heart the problem is the limits of our own knowledge, which in turn leads to a deep moral concern. As is frequently mentioned by moral philosophers, there is a great diversity of moral codes present in the world, ranging, for example, from cultures which practice female circumcism to keep women in their “proper” place to those which view women as equal to men. This doesn’t actually, as some claim, lead to the conclusion that the moral ideal is relative, but it does seem to show that it is very easy to go astray. Mistakes in this area are bad on a local and individual level, leading to ruined lives, but they are devastating when made by a centralized power. It is here that the moral problem comes into to the picture, as in the historical case of Soviet Russia, whose attempt to create a Utopia based on their view of flourishing human life led to the deaths of millions, and to economic damage from which the country is still suffering.
Thus, precisely the inefficiency of local attempts to make the world ideal seem to actually make these the ideal case. It is important here to make a distinction between inefficiency and incompetency. Local efforts to build a better world will still ideally make a difference, only doing so more slowly. Those communities which properly understand the good will see their members flourish more, while those which don’t will ultimately run into far more problems. As other communities see the success of the flourishing locality over the others, this will encourage them to adopt similar practices. This is more piecemeal, but it avoids the devastating consequences possible when a mistake is made by centralized power.
This, I argue, is one of many justifications for the distributionist and communitarian state. We cannot afford to build a legal and economic system on the basis of a centralized power that will too easily be co-opted by the machinations of Utopians seeking to make the world a better place… at any cost. In the human world of limited perspective and moral failure, inefficiency is a boon, not a detriment.
Note: Much of what was written here was originally explored by me in a paper for my Metaethics class in the Fall of 2009 (and, hey, I got an A on it, so I must have done something right)
The temptation for the Utopian is the temptation to think that the best way to achieve the ideal human circumstances is through exercising the influence of some strong centralized power, most notably that of government. In general, this view seems to arise from the appeal of efficiency. Where a thousand local agencies might work at cross purposes, sabotaging the formation of Utopia, a single central organization can organize these efforts and thereby seemingly better achieve the goal. However, it is precisely this efficiency that makes the temptation to centralization a liability.
At its heart the problem is the limits of our own knowledge, which in turn leads to a deep moral concern. As is frequently mentioned by moral philosophers, there is a great diversity of moral codes present in the world, ranging, for example, from cultures which practice female circumcism to keep women in their “proper” place to those which view women as equal to men. This doesn’t actually, as some claim, lead to the conclusion that the moral ideal is relative, but it does seem to show that it is very easy to go astray. Mistakes in this area are bad on a local and individual level, leading to ruined lives, but they are devastating when made by a centralized power. It is here that the moral problem comes into to the picture, as in the historical case of Soviet Russia, whose attempt to create a Utopia based on their view of flourishing human life led to the deaths of millions, and to economic damage from which the country is still suffering.
Thus, precisely the inefficiency of local attempts to make the world ideal seem to actually make these the ideal case. It is important here to make a distinction between inefficiency and incompetency. Local efforts to build a better world will still ideally make a difference, only doing so more slowly. Those communities which properly understand the good will see their members flourish more, while those which don’t will ultimately run into far more problems. As other communities see the success of the flourishing locality over the others, this will encourage them to adopt similar practices. This is more piecemeal, but it avoids the devastating consequences possible when a mistake is made by centralized power.
This, I argue, is one of many justifications for the distributionist and communitarian state. We cannot afford to build a legal and economic system on the basis of a centralized power that will too easily be co-opted by the machinations of Utopians seeking to make the world a better place… at any cost. In the human world of limited perspective and moral failure, inefficiency is a boon, not a detriment.
Note: Much of what was written here was originally explored by me in a paper for my Metaethics class in the Fall of 2009 (and, hey, I got an A on it, so I must have done something right)
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Politics: Distributivism, It's Probably Not What You Think It Is
Politics come up with me in conversation. I don't think I aim for it, but it just seems to happen (so does Religion... thankfully I also seem to have a flame dampener around me... most of the time).
"I'm a distributivist," I tell them, and, almost inevitably, they think it's some kind of cute term for socialism. It isn't, indeed its quite distinct. Here's a definition, taken from the website of distinguished distributivist John C. Médaille. He's got quite a detailed "encyclopedia of distributivism" if you want to know more.
"an economic theory... [it]ts key tenet is that ownership of the means of production should be as widespread as possible rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few owners (Capitalism) or in the hands of state bureaucrats (Socialism)"
There's of course a lot more to the theory, and it's further tied (typically) to communitarian/localist politics, which hold that government power, as much as possible, should be widespread and distributed (see the connection?). There's many justifications for this view, some practical and others moral. I've talked about it a few times here before, and plan to say more about it in the future, but there's your basic definition.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Politics: Front Porch Republic
A few weeks back, a friend of mine introduced me to the Front Porch Republic after I'd mentioned I was interested in localization. Front Porch Republic is a group of folks (at least some of them trained political theorists) writing about localization, communitarianism and distributivism.
Cheers.
I just started reading some of their posts, and while I obviously haven't read everything they've written, this has to be one of the most awesome blogs ever.
At the very least I recommend checking out their about section and reading 'A Republic of Front Porches' and 'What Our Hands Have Wrought'.
Cheers.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Book Review: Deep Economy
Deep Economy by Bill McKibben
It doesn’t take a genius to see that the world economy is headed for trouble. No, I’m not talking about the current downturn in the American economy, or even a depression, but something far worse. I’m talking about the kind of economic trouble that leads to war and famine. The simple fact is, the world is a closed system, within it are a limited number of resources with a limited rate of renewability. We are consuming things at a greater rate than they can renew. This has had some good effects, such as technological innovation, but it has also led to such horrors as the growth of illegal slavery. Worst of all, the situation seems hopeless. The West is locked into its pattern of mass consumption, and is dependent for its very survival on a system of agriculture that uses unprecedented amounts of water and petrol. To make matters worse, the East is rapidly catching up, and who can blame them? For people at the level of poverty experienced in that part of the world, the wealth that industrialization creates brings a marked improvement in quality of life. Frankly, the situation scares me, and it is for this reason, that I am deeply grateful for Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy.
The book starts out with the prognoses described above. McKibben talks about the overconsumption of resources and the deterioration of our environment. He then goes on to discuss how the continued pursuit of more economic growth has failed to bring us more happiness. After stating the problem, he goes on to present a multitude of solutions, all centered around the idea of smaller, localized economies that are not growth based, but instead sustainable. McKibben makes a powerful case for such an economy, and what is more he shows how it could work by highlighting places in the world where it has already started to come into being.
His suggestions aren’t without their problems (the proposal of localized currency is downright stupid), and it’s hard to see most modern Americans changing their lives in the ways he suggests. Still, his plan is for the most part realistic, it doesn’t ask that we all become radical liberals living in some socialist utopia, it simply asks that we restructure our economy in a way that will benefit both humans and the world around us. This book provides a concrete plan, and a definite hope. Oh, and it's also extremely well written and is a pleasure to read. I heartily recommend it this book to anyone concerned about the condition of our world.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that the world economy is headed for trouble. No, I’m not talking about the current downturn in the American economy, or even a depression, but something far worse. I’m talking about the kind of economic trouble that leads to war and famine. The simple fact is, the world is a closed system, within it are a limited number of resources with a limited rate of renewability. We are consuming things at a greater rate than they can renew. This has had some good effects, such as technological innovation, but it has also led to such horrors as the growth of illegal slavery. Worst of all, the situation seems hopeless. The West is locked into its pattern of mass consumption, and is dependent for its very survival on a system of agriculture that uses unprecedented amounts of water and petrol. To make matters worse, the East is rapidly catching up, and who can blame them? For people at the level of poverty experienced in that part of the world, the wealth that industrialization creates brings a marked improvement in quality of life. Frankly, the situation scares me, and it is for this reason, that I am deeply grateful for Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy.
The book starts out with the prognoses described above. McKibben talks about the overconsumption of resources and the deterioration of our environment. He then goes on to discuss how the continued pursuit of more economic growth has failed to bring us more happiness. After stating the problem, he goes on to present a multitude of solutions, all centered around the idea of smaller, localized economies that are not growth based, but instead sustainable. McKibben makes a powerful case for such an economy, and what is more he shows how it could work by highlighting places in the world where it has already started to come into being.
His suggestions aren’t without their problems (the proposal of localized currency is downright stupid), and it’s hard to see most modern Americans changing their lives in the ways he suggests. Still, his plan is for the most part realistic, it doesn’t ask that we all become radical liberals living in some socialist utopia, it simply asks that we restructure our economy in a way that will benefit both humans and the world around us. This book provides a concrete plan, and a definite hope. Oh, and it's also extremely well written and is a pleasure to read. I heartily recommend it this book to anyone concerned about the condition of our world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)