5 ms·

Ahem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum > The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, an

Ahem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum > The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. This isn’t new!

gottebp 7y ago
A beautiful document. Fans of G.K. Chesterton (Chesterton's Fence, etc.) might be interested to know that Rerum novarum profoundly affected the man's life, and there is a fascinating outworking from it, misleadingly named "Distributism" that would see a society with the maximal number of small businesses in the hands of as many friends and families as possible, along with a return to the guild system and 'localism' in as many places as possible (not just food) [1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
- jawns 7y ago
  I agree, it's a lousy name. Unfortunately, many people, upon hearing of it for the first time, assume that it entails forced redistribution of wealth -- take from the rich to give to the poor. But that's not what distributism is about. It's a "third way" economic system that advocates for widespread ownership of productive property. Whereas in laissez-faire capitalism, the ownership of such property becomes concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of wealthy business people, and in socialism the ownership falls into the hands of the state, controlled by a relatively small number of politicians and bureaucrats, distributists argue that society works best when ownership of productive property is not concentrated, but diffuse. But to achieve that end by seizing and redistributing property would go against the point of distributism, which is not socialism under another name. At most, distributists argue for a climate in which such a system can flourish. Cooperative business structures are a great example of what distributism advocates for. And we know that co-ops can be really beneficial, as long as they're not disadvantaged under the law.
  - cpr 7y ago
    Though Belloc (one of his well known collaborators) did advocate state seizure of goods in order to bring it about.
ntnsndr 7y ago
While this is very much in line with Rerum Novarum's call for state assistance for the poor, the way Francis presents this indicates that he understands it as a call for trying something distinctly new. Otherwise, he would simply talk about buttressing the welfare state, as the church often does. Instead, he's talking about the need for considering a different approach.
gen220 7y ago
An interesting bit of trivia, but this idea is very old, and geographically close to the Pope (though the practice predates state sponsored Christianity). In antiquity, the Roman Empire practiced a flavor of UBI, in that the city of Rome provided free wheat (later, bread) to its poorer citizens. This was no trivial matter, as importing and distributing (to 200k citizens, at its zenith) were complicated and expensive. This was a stable arrangement for centuries. After the loss of North Africa, the wheat stopped flowing so regularly, and it grew increasingly expensive to support this benefit, but giving it up was politically impossible. Rome collapsed, and the experiment ended. Across the world, Lao Tzu said the wise lead by emptying hearts and filling bellies. There’s also some famous saying “Civilization is always four square meals away from collapse”. What can we learn from this? UBI makes sense when times are good, when there is surplus and trade. But it’s very hard to revoke what a people are used to receiving for free. It might be more efficient to teach a human to fish, than to feed him fish “for free” every day.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  I think you are missing the point of the Left - that owners of capital tend to put up fences, set guards so that other people cannot fish in "their" water. And additionally knowing how to fish is SOL when we over fish our resources because market signals are ineffective at large scale directed action. And I get itchy each time someone says if only we were all free it would be such a better world because soon someone says I shall make them free. We need "The State" as a form of insurance for risks that don't occur often enough for actuaries to profitably price, or occur too often and actuaries cannot change all of our behaviour all at once
  - gen220 7y ago
    I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. IMO, the role of the government is to make it safe to be fishers and teachers of fishers. That means shutting down the people who would murder you for your fish, and shutting down the companies that would monopolize the bodies of water. But, should the government catch your fish for you? It seems that we feel like the answer to that question is "it depends", since not everyone can fish. But then again, this is why we have division of labor, and geographic mobility. If you can't fish in Arkansas, maybe you can farm in Montana. Some people are in need of special help, but should that come from the government? In the past, it's come from communities. What about the people shunned from communities? It's a rabbit hole. My point is, it's hard to draw a line that doesn't lead to "let the government do it". But the government isn't particularly effective at most things it has attempted to do: I generally feel like, for most problems we turn to the government for, there's usually a better way (and by that, I do not simply "if we were all freer"), but it does seems to be found more often an emergent property of liberal societies than a prescriptive form to fill out. In case it isn't clear, I don't hold very strong views here, I'm sorry if that they might have itched you, just thinking out loud :)
dredmorbius 7y ago
It's not new. But it's also not common. Francis (see top-level comment) has had an unprecedented focus on poverty and the poor.

gottebp 7y ago

A beautiful document. Fans of G.K. Chesterton (Chesterton's Fence, etc.) might be interested to know that Rerum novarum profoundly affected the man's life, and there is a fascinating outworking from it, misleadingly named "Distributism" that would see a society with the maximal number of small businesses in the hands of as many friends and families as possible, along with a return to the guild system and 'localism' in as many places as possible (not just food) [1]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

jawns 7y ago
I agree, it's a lousy name. Unfortunately, many people, upon hearing of it for the first time, assume that it entails forced redistribution of wealth -- take from the rich to give to the poor. But that's not what distributism is about. It's a "third way" economic system that advocates for widespread ownership of productive property. Whereas in laissez-faire capitalism, the ownership of such property becomes concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of wealthy business people, and in socialism the ownership falls into the hands of the state, controlled by a relatively small number of politicians and bureaucrats, distributists argue that society works best when ownership of productive property is not concentrated, but diffuse. But to achieve that end by seizing and redistributing property would go against the point of distributism, which is not socialism under another name. At most, distributists argue for a climate in which such a system can flourish. Cooperative business structures are a great example of what distributism advocates for. And we know that co-ops can be really beneficial, as long as they're not disadvantaged under the law.
- cpr 7y ago
  Though Belloc (one of his well known collaborators) did advocate state seizure of goods in order to bring it about.

ntnsndr 7y ago

While this is very much in line with Rerum Novarum's call for state assistance for the poor, the way Francis presents this indicates that he understands it as a call for trying something distinctly new. Otherwise, he would simply talk about buttressing the welfare state, as the church often does. Instead, he's talking about the need for considering a different approach.

gen220 7y ago

An interesting bit of trivia, but this idea is very old, and geographically close to the Pope (though the practice predates state sponsored Christianity). In antiquity, the Roman Empire practiced a flavor of UBI, in that the city of Rome provided free wheat (later, bread) to its poorer citizens. This was no trivial matter, as importing and distributing (to 200k citizens, at its zenith) were complicated and expensive. This was a stable arrangement for centuries. After the loss of North Africa, the wheat stopped flowing so regularly, and it grew increasingly expensive to support this benefit, but giving it up was politically impossible. Rome collapsed, and the experiment ended. Across the world, Lao Tzu said the wise lead by emptying hearts and filling bellies. There’s also some famous saying “Civilization is always four square meals away from collapse”. What can we learn from this? UBI makes sense when times are good, when there is surplus and trade. But it’s very hard to revoke what a people are used to receiving for free. It might be more efficient to teach a human to fish, than to feed him fish “for free” every day.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago
I think you are missing the point of the Left - that owners of capital tend to put up fences, set guards so that other people cannot fish in "their" water. And additionally knowing how to fish is SOL when we over fish our resources because market signals are ineffective at large scale directed action. And I get itchy each time someone says if only we were all free it would be such a better world because soon someone says I shall make them free. We need "The State" as a form of insurance for risks that don't occur often enough for actuaries to profitably price, or occur too often and actuaries cannot change all of our behaviour all at once
- gen220 7y ago
  I pretty much agree with everything you're saying. IMO, the role of the government is to make it safe to be fishers and teachers of fishers. That means shutting down the people who would murder you for your fish, and shutting down the companies that would monopolize the bodies of water. But, should the government catch your fish for you? It seems that we feel like the answer to that question is "it depends", since not everyone can fish. But then again, this is why we have division of labor, and geographic mobility. If you can't fish in Arkansas, maybe you can farm in Montana. Some people are in need of special help, but should that come from the government? In the past, it's come from communities. What about the people shunned from communities? It's a rabbit hole. My point is, it's hard to draw a line that doesn't lead to "let the government do it". But the government isn't particularly effective at most things it has attempted to do: I generally feel like, for most problems we turn to the government for, there's usually a better way (and by that, I do not simply "if we were all freer"), but it does seems to be found more often an emergent property of liberal societies than a prescriptive form to fill out. In case it isn't clear, I don't hold very strong views here, I'm sorry if that they might have itched you, just thinking out loud :)

dredmorbius 7y ago

It's not new. But it's also not common. Francis (see top-level comment) has had an unprecedented focus on poverty and the poor.