Catholic Blog Surfing
Bert Ghezzi is a genuinely good guy. I've corresponded with him on a few occasions, and he even expressed willingness to "go to bat" for me on a book proposal he liked (alas, even Bert can't overcome one's dearth of talent). He has written a new book. I haven't read it, but it sounds pretty good: Adventures in Daily Prayer. * * * * * * * Okay, so now I can no longer eat steak: Japanese scientists have discovered a way to create edible steaks from human feces. Link. * * * * * * * The whole Corapi thing bums me out, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm Catholic despite the Catholics. I mean no offense to my fellow Catholics out there, but let's face it: we have far too many lukewarm lay and far too many sliding priests. The Corapi scandal and his subsequent bizarre Internet ministry reveals a lot of egocentricity and possibly a measure of mental instability. That's all I have to say on the issue. If you want more, surf the Catholic blogosphere. Especially recommended.
Distributist Commentary
I've noticed a disturbing trend lately among Catholics who don't like libertarians: they're defending a strong central government. One magazine that I've received for over five years ran a lead editorial that excoriated Austrian economists and praised the federal government. I was astonished. Not at the excoriation of Austrian economists (whose ideas most traditional Catholics don't understand), but at the sudden love affair with the central government and the apparent jettisoning of the principle of subsidiarity.
So when I saw this piece at The Distributist Review, The Political Economy of Distributism, I clicked on it, figuring it'd be more of the same misdirected criticism of libertarianism and praise of a strong central government.
I was wrong. It's a good piece. So good, in fact, that I might buy the guy's book. I don't agree with everything he says, not at all, but I think his presentation of libertarian arguments is fair and informed. He also displays a grasp of fundamental insights, like this:
It is government which fosters the accumulation of property into fewer and fewer hands. Indeed, without the aid and protection of government, the piles of capital could not have grown as high as they have. And the higher the piles of private capital grow, the thicker the walls of public power necessary to protect them. Big government and big capital go together, and this is a simple fact of our history, beyond all reasonable dispute.
Thing is, he then goes on to say this:
That being said, there are clearly cases where government must, in fact, redistribute property. The case of Taiwan comes to mind, where the population was held in virtual slavery to a few landowners.
Now wait a minute. In the first paragraph, he says piles of capital couldn't grow so high, but for the actions of government. But then he says piles of capital accumulated in Taiwan without the actions of government? I know nothing about Taiwan, but if there was a gross distortion of wealth, I'm willing to bet it was accomplished through the help of government, just as we have a gross distortion of wealth in this country due to the federal government's links with Wall Street. The two paragraphs aren't entirely irreconcilable, as written, but are doggone close to it.
And that is the entire issue: are free markets efficient? If you trust free markets to allocate scarce resources the most efficiently, you don't want the government screwing things up by getting involved in the process. That makes you a free market libertarian. If you don't trust the free markets and you want the government involved, that makes you something else: a modern liberal, a socialist, a communist, etc.
Where do the distributists fall? I honestly don't know. They say they drink free markets, with a government chaser. I'm not convinced it's possible. The government chaser inevitably creates distortions: Wall Street today, England after Henry VIII's confiscation of Church property and redistribution to his friends, Taiwan (yes, I'll bet $5 on the proposition that government created the gross distortions the writer references; I'm going to trust my libertarian gut instinct over my ignorance on the issue).
The distributists need to figure out where they stand on this issue. I fear they don't know themselves.
But for the most part, the piece is a thoughtful essay and highly recommended.
