Here. "Contrary to what our critics suggest, Distributism does not denote government redistribution of wealth, which is socialism, but rather the natural distribution of wealth that arises when the means of production are distributed as widely as possible in society."
I am afraid I must quibble with the lax definition of socialism just given.
Robert Heilbroner defines socialism in terms of "a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production." This is the standard definition.
By the way, it is a tactical mistake for libertarians and conservatives to label Obama a socialist. For what will happen, has happened: liberals will revert to the strict definition and point out that Obama is not a socialist by this definition. Then they will accuse his opponents of mispresenting his position, with some justice.
To my knowledge, Obama has never advocated socialism, despite the fact that his behavior manifests a decided slouch towards it. So when the libertarian or conservative accuses Obama of socialism, he lets himself in for a fruitless and wholly unnecessary verbal dispute from which he will emerge the loser.
It is enough to point out that the policies of Obama and the Democrat Party lead us toward bigger government and away from self-reliance, individual responsibility, and individual liberty.
Recent Comments