International Republican Union

Thank you, Acting Chancellor. Hopefully we can get another WA nation in here to endorse you to make your position official.

To Weimer and those so concerned,
Foremost let it be known that I do not wish to offend you, for I believe your pervious comments to be faulty largely from misunderstanding and so I present to you my responses in a civil manner (pardon my wording as it might come off offensive, but there is always a contempt for words). To emphasize this last point I would like to say that the reason for my delay in responding is because I did not want to fill the message board with hate, or make it seem that I despise you; I however decided that your comments need to be addressed to repair our relationship (since you evidently think I am a Marxist) and even the region’s thoughts of me since leaving things on your sour note makes it seem that I am indeed a Marxist or something. If you (or anyone for the matter) think of questions feel free to pose them to me either on the message board or by telegram.

All the best, and God bless,
The GOR

We don't think you're a Marxist, GOR. We just think the ideology you are researching is a bit too collectivist.

GOR, your ideology sounds like it has roots in Marxism.
*As stated on Distributism’s factbook the idea came from Rovum Novarum, a document issued by Pope Leo, if you bothered to read it and the links I gave you would see there is no reason to call it ‘Marxist.’ In fact, while most people say “Communism looks good on paper” I say they are quite mistaken; I have read much of the Communist Manifesto for class and it is more about violent revolution and upheaval of religion than about economics. Marx just threw in some utopia economy at the end; the true point is to bring about revolution. His later book Das Kapital is about how the economics work as opposed to capitalism (and even in the book it is clear that is doesn’t work).
In the middle ages, the prevailing economic system was serfdom (perhaps this is more of a social system). Peasants had very little in the way of their own land, for instance, look at Russia (where 90% of the people were serfs) and France, where over 70% were serfs.
*I explicitly said ‘without serfdom’ which (you are correct) is a more of a social system than an economic one. My point partially was that in the Middle Ages people got what they needed and that was enough; now people can get more than they need which leads to greed and other vices.
Only until the bourgeoisie arrived, in the pursuit of profit, were new jobs in production created for the peasants who had literally scraped subsistence from the earth for so long. Contrary to Marxist doctrine, wages are not immoral or slavery. They are merely the price of what a particular commodity (in this case, labor) is worth.
* That’s is exactly the problem, people/labor are NEVER a commodity they are made in the image of God that is why the main call for from the Church was to do economics/capitalism in a moral way.
The real way to boost wages is to allow the Free Market to continue to incentivize people to be free. To pursue their own profits and create businesses to hire more people.
*Why do people need incentives to be free? The quote on the region’s flag explicitly is referring to the need for people to be owners in order to be free.
Capitalism is responsible for the wonders of the modern world. It has brought us (all members of society, not just the "rich") such wonders as washing machines, refrigerators, automobiles, electrical products (like lightbulbs, air conditioning), televisions, cheaper food, decent medical care (oh, and by the way, in the middle ages they used blood letting), and so on.
*Certainly not a ‘pro’ for me, I rue most modern technology, are we to assume the Medieval man could not live a good life without these thing? No.
Capitalism and capitalism alone can allow humanity to embark on a road of progress, to a future with never ending possibilities. A future that vilifies violence and praises freedom. A future where people are allowed to live the way they want to live, not how some king, lord, politician, or bureaucrat wants them to live.
*No. First, through my philology studies I have learned the only when the ‘enlightenment’ and industrial revolution came about did man even think about such an idea of ‘progress’ and such, before they believed, as a Christian ought, that the world will never succeed in becoming ‘unfallen’ for every vice destroyed another virtue dies. Progress is also not only a modern view but a western one, the Tuva for instance believe you can’t look or progress to the future; you can only look to the past. So they much like the Medieval scholar saw that man needed to try to regress to the days before the fall of man, not move further and further away from them.
Second, are we to presume that Medieval man or most any other culture and time doesn’t despise violence? Moreover that modern man has somehow improved in this regard, or is at least improving? Need I say look at the world, perhaps never has violence been greater. As for freedom, that is as said one of the main tenements of distributism and you can go ahead and say that is improving while schools and businesses install more security cameras and the government does more and more for us.
Third, your final point here is ridiculous, not only has sociology etc. proven that basically nobody lives how they truly want to (thanks to sin), but while people are more and more told how to live (I don’t mean this in a big government sort of way I mean in a mass media telling you how to live your life sort of way).
World War one saw a society that though it could ‘progress to paradise’ much as you have stated and then “progress” killed millions, the world has forgotten this and is embarking on that road again. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien, who saw the slaughter of the Somme and in the hospital wrote his first story that became a part of Middle Earth (The Fall of Gondolin):
“I will not walk with your progressive apes,
erect and sapient. Before them gapes
the dark abyss to which their progress tends
if by God’s mercy progress ever ends,” -Mythopoeia
The whole reason we were able to transfer our population (the majority, at least) from the farm to the factory (or from the rural to the urban) is because of the agricultural revolution that precluded the Industrial Revolution.
*Really more of a simultaneous thing.
Your hack consumerist ideology could only be achieved via coercion from the state.
*I never said it was consumerist only you did without bothering to explain what the/ why the heck it is.
Instead of trying to dictate and organize society, the government and authority should simply leave it alone to the greatest extent possible (the minarchist state).
*Distributism advocates a smaller government than conservatives normally do, the idea is big government (socialism) always fights it out with big corporations (‘capitalism’), to solve this they reject the big money corporations AND the authoritarian government. You seem to assume the government is the one making people ‘owners’ I never said that.
Let's look at America for a moment, and the effects of your so-called "distributism".
*How can Distributism affect something if it has never existed at the national level? As seen in the first link I provided (at the bottom of that page) they cite only smaller scale success stories like a city in Italy that thanks to this system has twice the average income of the rest of Italy. As I say in the factbook, that is the ONLY region that embraces this style of economics.
Perhaps the minimum wage could be the greatest example. Because of the government raising the price of cheap labor, businesses simply do without in most cases. The minimum wage blocks the natural equilibrium of the free market, by pricing out laborers who are simply not worth the wage that is the so-called "minimum". This idea that wages are determined solely by the employer is a complete and utter fallacy. Wages are determined by the market, since labor is not a single commodity and there is always competition among capitalists and capitalist organizations, including workers and firms. Note, 95% of Americans earn above the minimum wage. If we simply eliminated the minimum, we could cut the unemployment rate by two thirds at least, legalizing labor that is worth less than the price control. Other examples of your "distributism" abound. Consider welfare programs. Consider food stamps. Consider Medicaid. Consider, consider, consider... All unproductive activities that sound good and merciful, but are fundamentally perverse, since they really just serve to make society unproductive and, in the long run, make everyone, rich or poor, worker or entrepreneur, poorer.
* Once more I said absolutely nothing about these ‘considerations’ otherwise to be called welfare programs; you seem to confuse Distributism with the welfare state or liberals, it is nothing of the sort, if anything it is super-conservative (being based partially on ancient economic systems). Moreover I outright reject most any form of welfare, look at The Eduin tat Mala of The Gallant Old Republic NO welfare; my family (and extended family) are business owners (my family owns three small businesses) no the ills of welfare making people lazy etc.
This is not to say that I support corporatism. Rather, I support a society where all people are viewed as individuals and are equal under the state. I am against such acts (to my dying breath) as real corporate welfare. I am against such disgusting economic systems as Mercantilism, corporatism, and other upwards distributing systems. End the redistribution, end the distribution by government. Let people, making their own decisions with free will distribute resources. Distributism, like all other collectivist ideologies, ignores human action, and motivation. Designed as cover to sell us a free lunch. What are we left with? A fine, disgusting, and perverse combination of: government spending, aggressive taxation, war, suppression, dependency.
*Once more you confuse you terms, distributism is not distribution of wealth, it is the idea that the economy works best when as many people as possible have the assets to make wealth an idea that I think you can agree with.
I cry out for FREEDOM!
*As do I, and justice, and many other things.

I re-posted those since I forgot to insert italics on Weimer quotations.