Maybe of interest, if you've not already read. My husband's former company was one of the big early adopters of this along with Blackrock. Along with all that is addressed, the culture of the company also became shockingly toxic.
Alex Berenstein on Joe Rogan - I see this as trying to virtue signal and save his own reputation. It shows the power of the racist attack, and the fear it provokes.
For what it's worth, only natural persons are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Corporations are creations of governments, legal fictions that exist only as a result of being chartered by a government entity. Government entities themselves are often creations of a higher level of government, municipalities and counties are chartered by states. Governments posses powers found in Constitutional and Statutory Laws, not rights. Private corporate entities have rights defined by law, no natural rights whatsoever. Private corporations should be treated equally under law, non profit and for profit corporations have radically different purposes. An example: why should a shareholder owned for profit company listed on the NYSE be allowed to donate anything of value? Should be illegal in my way of thinking, a liability could be given away, never any assets.
These are complicated issues, but my view is that the intersection between the various forms of association in society--whether corporations or other types of association--and politics needs to be reexamined.
Has no one a good word for Capitalism? I get it. Everyone wants to impose their idea of a perfect system. Chesterton calls for 'distributism', but isn't that just another way to get the government involved in economic planning? Why can't our so-called Capitalists occupy themselves with providing goods and services to the public, and sink or swim as they are successful in catering to a need? I remember the days of FDR, when his Crony Capitalists sought to dictate their terms to the marketplace, with the government on their side. The FDR government didn't even object when during World War 2 they traded with the enemy, against the law. Stakeholder or Woke capitalism is just another way the big guys can get the government on their side, and put the little guys out of business. But it sounds so noble! From the referenced articles it also seems Chesterton would object to putting really dangerous people in some sort of mental care facility, irrespective of the needs of society. Unfortunately there is no formula that can replace the considered judgment of intelligent and dedicated individuals when it comes to addressing our problems as they present themselves. Chesterton says Capitalism is breaking up. I am sorry for it.
Distributism "advocating for legal and economic structures that protected private property and local enterprise while preventing the formation of manipulative, controlling cartels, whether public or private." That doesn't sound like Socialism or government control of the marketplace to me. Isn't that sort of what we have HAD since the late 1800's with antitrust legislation, patent infringement legislation, copyright law, fair trade practices, etc.? I see those things as a legitimate and fair use of government. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean an absolutely unrestrained open market. ???
Why 'distributism?' We need laws, and able and honest people to assure proper administration. Once you have a formula, and they were rife at the time of Chesterton and GBS, the government will intervene as a matter of course and unfair advantage will be taken. Capitalism, as defined by Hayeck and the Austrian school, has provided unparalleled benefits to the average person and has the tremendous advantage in that it corresponds to the way people normally function. Even the socialists of my acquaintance do not share their wealth.
I think we agree about the benefits of Capitalism - it is just that the government is ALWAYS involved in public companies and the marketplace (that is a fact that will not change). The best we can hope for is that they will act morally and establish enforceable laws that will preclude unfair advantage, collusion, and government corruption in the marketplace. This is what I think Chesterton was after with the notion of Distributism.
I don't think "distributism" means what we might think, Perle. I think Chesterston thought of it in terms of what we might call a distributed network today, ie, decenrralized, so really the opposite of socialism. A better term might be Localized Capitalism or Local Market Capitalism.
Currently reading Charles Hugh Smith, "Global Crisis, National Renewal," that explores this idea of a future that ditches globalism and extended supply chains in favor of national/ regional/ local production. Cant say yet whether he's onto something but we need to find a solution to the tendency of large systems to corruption and monopoly.
I would be suspicious of the government running any distributed network. As for Localized Capitalism or Local Market Capitalism, I see a lot of that developing today. It is very responsive to my needs.
Yes, i think Local is about the only way any of us survive the coming fustercluck. I dont know that government will be running much of anything in the not too distant.
As a matter of history I believe that corporate structures and capitalism arose from state sponsorship and/or protection of business arrangements. The idea of an open marketplace totally free from government regulation is an ideological construct without foundation in the real world. The problem that has always arisen has been business gaining control over government for the benefit of an oligarchy to the exclusion of the rest of society.
Yes - East India Company and Hudson Bay Company being prime examples (of incorporation by royal charter). Then you have Columbus and the other explorers being directly funded by royals, etc. as an investment for the return of natural resources. Then you have the Netherlands and the Hanseatic League companies and governments leveraging trading. There has always been a symbiotic relationship between corporations and the state (for good or ill).
Mark, thanks very much for all your work tracking down and digesting important work from out in the interwebs. I’m especially grateful to be introduced to Douglas Farrow’s substack — fantastic stuff!
Excellent. Chesterton saw it all clearly then and many of us are seeing the same things now. What is the common denominator between him and us? He was a man writing from a morality based in a belief in God. We are once again and maybe finally approaching a government and a society that are absent God. Chesterton said: "But the truth is that it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticise the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God." Huh.
I agree. I disagree on that libertarian philosophy, but he's probably about the most principled guy in the Senate and has been invaluable on key issues.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/04/larry_finks_crusade_runs_into_resistance_147138.html
Maybe of interest, if you've not already read. My husband's former company was one of the big early adopters of this along with Blackrock. Along with all that is addressed, the culture of the company also became shockingly toxic.
Thanks
Interesting the attacks on Covid Blasphemy:
Gofundme removes Ivermectin fundraiser:
https://www.emilypostnews.com/p/gofundme-removes-fundraiser-for-dying-b95
Alex Berenstein on Joe Rogan - I see this as trying to virtue signal and save his own reputation. It shows the power of the racist attack, and the fear it provokes.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-joe-rogan/comments
Technofog on Rogan with a much better analysis:
https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan
And 113 Joe Rogan episodes removed so far by Spotify:
https://www.jremissing.com/?s=01
And the Obamas also adding to the pressure on Spotify with Joe Rogan, but quietly:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/02/05/joe-rogan-apologizes-for-being-joe-rogan-begs-woke-forgiveness/
Techno Fog was good.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/02/07/dave-portnoy-drops-a-nuclear-revelation-on-group-trying-to-cancel-joe-rogan-n518508
I missed that one this morning. Way to funny to see Portnoy nuke 'em.
For what it's worth, only natural persons are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Corporations are creations of governments, legal fictions that exist only as a result of being chartered by a government entity. Government entities themselves are often creations of a higher level of government, municipalities and counties are chartered by states. Governments posses powers found in Constitutional and Statutory Laws, not rights. Private corporate entities have rights defined by law, no natural rights whatsoever. Private corporations should be treated equally under law, non profit and for profit corporations have radically different purposes. An example: why should a shareholder owned for profit company listed on the NYSE be allowed to donate anything of value? Should be illegal in my way of thinking, a liability could be given away, never any assets.
These are complicated issues, but my view is that the intersection between the various forms of association in society--whether corporations or other types of association--and politics needs to be reexamined.
Reexamined with the primary concern being the preservation of individual God given rights.
Yes. I think that individual rights have little chance of surviving when the individual is matched up against these various types of associations.
Has no one a good word for Capitalism? I get it. Everyone wants to impose their idea of a perfect system. Chesterton calls for 'distributism', but isn't that just another way to get the government involved in economic planning? Why can't our so-called Capitalists occupy themselves with providing goods and services to the public, and sink or swim as they are successful in catering to a need? I remember the days of FDR, when his Crony Capitalists sought to dictate their terms to the marketplace, with the government on their side. The FDR government didn't even object when during World War 2 they traded with the enemy, against the law. Stakeholder or Woke capitalism is just another way the big guys can get the government on their side, and put the little guys out of business. But it sounds so noble! From the referenced articles it also seems Chesterton would object to putting really dangerous people in some sort of mental care facility, irrespective of the needs of society. Unfortunately there is no formula that can replace the considered judgment of intelligent and dedicated individuals when it comes to addressing our problems as they present themselves. Chesterton says Capitalism is breaking up. I am sorry for it.
Distributism "advocating for legal and economic structures that protected private property and local enterprise while preventing the formation of manipulative, controlling cartels, whether public or private." That doesn't sound like Socialism or government control of the marketplace to me. Isn't that sort of what we have HAD since the late 1800's with antitrust legislation, patent infringement legislation, copyright law, fair trade practices, etc.? I see those things as a legitimate and fair use of government. Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean an absolutely unrestrained open market. ???
Why 'distributism?' We need laws, and able and honest people to assure proper administration. Once you have a formula, and they were rife at the time of Chesterton and GBS, the government will intervene as a matter of course and unfair advantage will be taken. Capitalism, as defined by Hayeck and the Austrian school, has provided unparalleled benefits to the average person and has the tremendous advantage in that it corresponds to the way people normally function. Even the socialists of my acquaintance do not share their wealth.
I think we agree about the benefits of Capitalism - it is just that the government is ALWAYS involved in public companies and the marketplace (that is a fact that will not change). The best we can hope for is that they will act morally and establish enforceable laws that will preclude unfair advantage, collusion, and government corruption in the marketplace. This is what I think Chesterton was after with the notion of Distributism.
I don't think "distributism" means what we might think, Perle. I think Chesterston thought of it in terms of what we might call a distributed network today, ie, decenrralized, so really the opposite of socialism. A better term might be Localized Capitalism or Local Market Capitalism.
Currently reading Charles Hugh Smith, "Global Crisis, National Renewal," that explores this idea of a future that ditches globalism and extended supply chains in favor of national/ regional/ local production. Cant say yet whether he's onto something but we need to find a solution to the tendency of large systems to corruption and monopoly.
I would be suspicious of the government running any distributed network. As for Localized Capitalism or Local Market Capitalism, I see a lot of that developing today. It is very responsive to my needs.
Yes, i think Local is about the only way any of us survive the coming fustercluck. I dont know that government will be running much of anything in the not too distant.
As a matter of history I believe that corporate structures and capitalism arose from state sponsorship and/or protection of business arrangements. The idea of an open marketplace totally free from government regulation is an ideological construct without foundation in the real world. The problem that has always arisen has been business gaining control over government for the benefit of an oligarchy to the exclusion of the rest of society.
Yes - East India Company and Hudson Bay Company being prime examples (of incorporation by royal charter). Then you have Columbus and the other explorers being directly funded by royals, etc. as an investment for the return of natural resources. Then you have the Netherlands and the Hanseatic League companies and governments leveraging trading. There has always been a symbiotic relationship between corporations and the state (for good or ill).
Protection of business arrangements, as well as private property, is essential. I assume you don't agree with Obama and his "You didn't build that."
First rate post, Mark. Really good, vital stuff.
Mark, thanks very much for all your work tracking down and digesting important work from out in the interwebs. I’m especially grateful to be introduced to Douglas Farrow’s substack — fantastic stuff!
Excellent. Chesterton saw it all clearly then and many of us are seeing the same things now. What is the common denominator between him and us? He was a man writing from a morality based in a belief in God. We are once again and maybe finally approaching a government and a society that are absent God. Chesterton said: "But the truth is that it is only by believing in God that we can ever criticise the Government. Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God." Huh.
Check out the %age of Board positions that BlackRock and Vanguard hold on each of these woke corporations. Explains a lot.
Here is a pr piece put out by BR. Slug through it and you’ll see what I’m talking about https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/our-2021-stewardship-expectations.pdf
Same with Vanguard https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/how-we-advocate/investment-stewardship/investment-stewardship-insights.html
You’ll also find many videos and interviews with Rick Reider, BR telling us all what they’re doing.
I agree. I disagree on that libertarian philosophy, but he's probably about the most principled guy in the Senate and has been invaluable on key issues.