Random Ponderings on Top Issues

Given the title of this article, in reality this will focus on one major issue for the remainder of this year with different posts, as there is a lot to discuss and much of it will be impromptu, drawing from things I have written in my personal journals and other sources.  I want to begin this random series of perspectives by saying that one thing most of us need is a systematic statement of our world view on different issues and situations, and in studying a lot of different things this past year - G.K. Chesterton's writings, as well as the writings of such people as Ivan Ilyin and others - I have come to the conclusion that there are several things that need reform in this nation, and as I have come to that conclusion it has made me more resolute in some long-held positions I have had, but also given more clarification as to views I have held but may not have been able to classify by name.  In many cases, much of what I say will no doubt tick off people, as I am not guaranteeing "political correctness" on some things, and also I will not always even march lock-step with those who call themselves "conservative" either.   No one is perfect, in other words, and what we need to do as critical thinkers is to sort out what doesn't sound right and instead focus on the virtues of a given position.  In doing so, this means a radically new way of looking at things in some cases, even for me personally.  That being said, why don't we open this by way of introduction by stating some simple facts about where I stand politically and philosophically.

Some of the material I have been exposed to recently has included Hillaire Belloc's The Servile State, as well as Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.   Both of these books have something in common which has more or less given form to ideas I have had before, and that is both of them advance a socio-economic viewpoint called Distributism.   Also espoused by other well-known writers and activists such as Dorothy Day, Distributism is a viable alternative, with a strong Judeo-Christian foundation, to much of the nonsense that both Corporate America and big government espouse, in that a Distributist model starts at grassroots and doesn't serve the establishment well.   The tenets of Distributism stress things such as the right of all to property ownership, the importance of the family as the cornerstone of a society's economy, and also this position would be much friendlier to local business interests in contrast to corporate conglomerates.  Having a solid grounding in Judeo-Christian faith too, it also affirms the role of faith in business practices, something that the ethics-deficient corporate world needs these days.  Critics of Distributism say that it is promoting an agrarian society at the expense of technology, but it really is not - as a matter of fact, technology should be utilized properly as a tool to aid the stability, both socially and economically, of a society.   While Distributists often do romanticize agrarian life as the ideal, Distributism as properly understood applies just as equally to the small-town and even urban culture.  The reason many people associate Distributism with agriculture is probably due to the property ownership emphasis it has, but people can own properties in towns too.  The real impetus behind Distributism is to promote a greater self-sufficiency among families and individuals, while at the same time allowing for charitable effort where needed and also the interdependence of each self-run business regarding the success of the local economy.   So far in this year's Presidential race, it is unfortunate that none of the major candidates, Republican or Democrat, have the interests of the family in mind;  one candidate is a major figure in Corporate America, and espouses a "crony capitalism" in which smaller businesses suffer in order to advance the large corporation.   The other candidate is about more centralized government, and subsequentially more government control in daily life, and this is depersonalizing as it detracts from encouraging people toward self-sufficiency.  Neither the corporate executive nor the bureaucratic socialist have a clue as to what makes the average family tick, and that is why I will support neither of them.

Another idea I have in relation to this is the reinstatement of a system of guilds and co-ops to aid communities.  I want to focus on the co-op, in that I believe it is the key to benefitting everyone in a given community.   The way I perceive a co-op to work is quite simple really - a system is set up in a community, and the members of that community contribute as they are able, and then the system is there to benefit those who require its services.  Take for instance a medical clinic which is run on a co-op principle.  As part of the community ordinance, people would be encouraged (not coerced) to contribute an amount they are able to give to a pool fund, and that pool fund would aid in the operation of the clinic.  If some become financially unable to contribute at some point due to loss of employment or other situations, then the co-op would provide for them anyway via a discretionary account set up for that purpose.  In this way, people could get the care they need without having to stress about bills and insurance rackets.  In essence, a system like this would be a true insurance policy in that all members of a given community could benefit from it.  A system like this would quickly do away with the oppressive system of "Obamacare" as well as health insurance rackets which charge exorbitant premiums but then deliver little in return to those paying into it.  This is one idea I have among many, although it would take much more thought and planning to really iron out the details.

Another area that would be a target of reform is community upkeep.  In a truly Distributist situation, the community is the responsibility of those living in it, and what this would mean is volunteer-based beautification projects which would eliminate the need for overpaid and underqualified government workers.  One part of this would be resurrecting the old "Adopt-a-Highway" programs which were very effective years ago.  Also, planting things such as community vegetable gardens and other projects would aid in achieving the goal as well.   One thing for projects like these too would be to target younger people - if young teens are put to work, it would keep them out of trouble and they could have a sense of accomplishment for what they do.  For poor teens from low-income households, a fund could even be set up to pay them a minimal rate for their work, thus helping them contribute to their family's income too.  If more communities would do stuff like this, it would cut down on crime, and if such programs were made mandatory in problem areas (dare I say Black neighborhoods in many cities, which are notoriously crappy-looking and crime-ridden, although it is probably not "politically-correct" to say so and may get me some badmouthing from loudmouths like Al Sharpton), it would cut the need for entitlement programs and instead encourage the development of a responsible work ethic.  It could also be made part of the school curriculum for local high schools, colleges, and universities as well, given past success rates with such things.  Known as "cooperative education," such programs benefit both the young person and the community, in that it also helps the young person develop practical work experience to make job searching less stressful later.  College and even high school credit could even be given in some instances for participation.  It is programs like this, which are at their core essentially Distributist, which will revitalize many communities if people would just take such things seriously.

The key to something like this working is a change in attitude on the part of so much of the American public.  We have been, by and large, swept up in a post-modernist "feelings-centered" mentality where encouraging hard work and self-sufficiency is viewed by such people as "racist" or "offensive."  It is so much easier for the detractors (many of whom are radically left-leaning in politics and morality) to throw money at a problem rather than fixing it at the fundamental level, and hence the problem.   Distributism understands that often it does more good to temporarily hurt someone's feelings in order to motivate them to do better, and although the person may not find getting his toes stepped on too endearing, in the end such a person, if receptive, will be thankful for the assertive approach.  This is why also we need to get the wimps, pansies, and sissified career politicians, many of whom will say or do anything to keep their cushy jobs (another reason why Congressional term limits are a great idea, but that is for another discussion), out of office and elect real leadership which is more about correct action and motivation than political rhetoric.   Good candidates with a more Distributist approach to economics and who listen to those who voted for them will in time be able to even resolve the national debt if we cut some "fat" regarding entitlement programs from the Federal budget.  Until we do, America's fate is questionable at best.

Those were a few thoughts today on Distributism and economics, and hopefully I can share more soon.