Quantcast
| |  
Food for the Poor Godspy.com: Faith at the Edge

Advertisement

CATEGORIES:     BOOKSBUSINESSCULTUREFAITHISSUESLIFEMOVIESPOLITICSSCIENCE/TECHSPIRITUALITYTVWORLD
keir_h

keir_h | 0 posts | Member since 03.14.08

Comments

RE: Get Married! The Case for Tying the Knot Early
Yup. I don't know the author and I don't know the US - but that certainly seems to be the situation this side of the pond too. Young people need the support of the family, exactly as you say. I have seen this kind of "dating service plus" work very well for an Indian Catholic friend! Failing that, I suppose we need the community to help us at least meet eligable people and provide examples of marriage that actually look attractive. Oh, and buying us a house wouldn't go amiss ;)


RE: The Global Crisis: Lessons from the Middle Ages
Mr. Caldecott, Perhaps it is unclear what you are talking about because your article stops short of what Chesterton himself meant by "distributism"? From what we know of the actual distributists, and such documents as remain (e.g. the great debate with Shaw - http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/debate.txt ) it seems clear that Belloc (e.g. in his "Essay on the Restoration of Property")and Chesterton really did want to impose very concrete and what we would see as draconian and punitive taxation, if not wholesale reallocation of all kinds of property, starting with land. They wanted to literally restore common property that had been grabbed by rich families centuries before. In this they went way beyond socialists like we have now in the UK (I would say both parties are equally wedded to a socialist model) who just differ in the way they funnel tax money around. They basically wanted to revolutionise society; their ideas, when published, almost started riots (see DeBoer Langworthy, C. "Distributism"). I think their new state would have been a lot more like the Scouring of the Shire (a violent coup by armed hobbits censored entirely from the Hollywood movies!) and less like a bunch of middle-class people (hi guys!) debating theoretical points. ============================================= Reference: DeBoer-Langworthy is online here: http://dl.lib.brown.edu:8081/exist/mjp/display.xq?docid=mjp.2005.00.081


RE: The Global Crisis: Lessons from the Middle Ages
I am personally dirt poor, over-educated, and still willing to debate. My gardener friend from South London who used to devour history books and ruined my copy of Plato's "Republic" by reading it at work is another counter-example :p I would define "middle-class" in those famous terms, as the man who "has reserves". Those who already have property perhaps don't understand the feeling of homelessness in the majority. Chesterton did understand this, mainly because he could see what was going on. If you actually read his rhetoric, it is very mild, not as obfusticatious as the current stuff. It is the grammar (description of facts) and logic which grates so much on our ears today. Belloc's prose is even more terse and to the point. They thought that to have a good society you need a lot of responsible people. For people to be responsilble, they need something for which to be responsible. Hence, a larger number of people need substantial property, ownership. This is not "mere rhetoric". But it is a big taboo for our modern British audience.


RE: The Global Crisis: Lessons from the Middle Ages
This site appears to have changed my : p into "raspberry"... automatic text processing "seems to have ran [sic] away" with itself.


RE: The Global Crisis: Lessons from the Middle Ages
Since Mr. Caldecott has had his free blog-plug, may I plug someone else's blog (one which is more directly pertinent the actual topic of distributism)? http://distributism.blogspot.com/ (news) http://distributist.blogspot.com/ (history & ideas) These have the actual info and news on distributism, rather than complex justifications of the status quo :raspberry:


RE: After the Disaster: Back to the Family and Localism
It's all very well to say these things, but only the Government, in the end, has any chance of standing up for the rights of its people to own property and raise a family. The unions showed their fragility and human failings when they were crushed and subdued in this country by Thatcher. Yet the few property-owning people left seem highly unlikely to stand up for the renting (including mortgages, renting til death) masses. They are financially and culturally implicated in the main financial/social establishment, which is pretty much explicitly out of touch with common people. A religious justification for solidarity seems a necessary starting point; otherwise I can't see the rich, even the trendy middle-class rich, becoming open enough to support the non-owning majority.


RE: After the Disaster: Back to the Family and Localism
Oh, yeah, my original train of thought; back last century when Chesterton and Belloc went down these lines, they didn't shrink from attempting to affect the highest statesmen; Belloc himself became an MP.


Faith at the Edge Traces