I gave you my answer: total government control over the economy or more modest ill-conceived government intrusion into the wealth creating process of the free enterprise system are variations on the same command and control theme: same text, a page apart.
From "Towards a Truly free Market" pages 242-243 (this is just a snippet, the details and living examples of what he proposes are in the book):
"Traditions and institutions of civic responsibility and democracy grow first in the village and the city, and only later work their way up to the national and international levels. The liberal tradition of trying to impose order from the top is like trying to build a house by starting with the roof. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. Further, the purpose of the higher levels of government is to serve the lower levels, not be served by them. Strong local institutions, endowed with rights of their own and backed by citizens willing to defend those rights, are the best guarantee against national and international tyranny.
Distributism and Government
Critics of distributism often charge that the theory is no more than a variety of socialism. This charge is odd for two reasons: One, socialism is the theory that there should be no private property, while distributism is the theory that property ought to be spread as broadly as possible; the two are precisely opposite. Two, the actual practice of distributism, in Mondragon Cooperative corporation, the Emilia-Romagna Development Agency, the Taiwan "Land to tiller" Program of General Douglas MacArthur, the ESOP - Springfield ReManufacturing Corp, and other places, are more "libertarian" than anything the libertarians have been able to accomplish.
Maybe it is the term distributism which conjures up the specter of redistribution, the idea that some committee of bureaucrats will decide who will-and who will not-own property? BUT Distributism is not about what the government ought to do as about what it ought to stop doing. The claim of the distributist in this regard is not much different from the claim of the anarchist libertarian: it is central government protection 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 privileged 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."
Verdugo responds:
You write as if what you say is opposed to the author of this thread's source/subject the book "Towards a Truly Free Market', but obviously you have not read what the author has written, and you have let your preconcieved notions prevail over reality. The author's book is precisely about how "total government control over the economy or more modest ill-conceived government intrusion into the wealth creating process of the free enterprise system" has created the monster we have today!!!!
From "Towards a Truly free Market" pages 242-243 (this is just a snippet, the details and living examples of what he proposes are in the book):
"Traditions and institutions of civic responsibility and democracy grow first in the village and the city, and only later work their way up to the national and international levels. The liberal tradition of trying to impose order from the top is like trying to build a house by starting with the roof. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. To reinvigorate the political order we must follow the principle of subsidiarity; that is, we must transfer as much power and responsibility to the local levels of government as possible. Further, the purpose of the higher levels of government is to serve the lower levels, not be served by them. Strong local institutions, endowed with rights of their own and backed by citizens willing to defend those rights, are the best guarantee against national and international tyranny.
Distributism and Government
Critics of distributism often charge that the theory is no more than a variety of socialism. This charge is odd for two reasons: One, socialism is the theory that there should be no private property, while distributism is the theory that property ought to be spread as broadly as possible; the two are precisely opposite. Two, the actual practice of distributism, in Mondragon Cooperative corporation, the Emilia-Romagna Development Agency, the Taiwan "Land to tiller" Program of General Douglas MacArthur, the ESOP - Springfield ReManufacturing Corp, and other places, are more "libertarian" than anything the libertarians have been able to accomplish.
Maybe it is the term distributism which conjures up the specter of redistribution, the idea that some committee of bureaucrats will decide who will-and who will not-own property? BUT Distributism is not about what the government ought to do as about what it ought to stop doing. The claim of the distributist in this regard is not much different from the claim of the anarchist libertarian: it is central government protection 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 privileged 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."