Perspectives of a Wanderer

A few months back I wrote about “The Decline (and possible demise) of the Print Media“.  In there, I stated why I do not think e-Books and their readers are “progress”.  One of my reasons was:

First, this limits one’s sources of literature to those companies that can afford to, or are allowed to sell their products in the formats readable by these devices.  This is dangerous since censorship could easily creep into the selection of what gets publishes based on viewpoint or that one dares to also publish with the competitor’s proprietary format.  It also smacks of global capitalism since devices for reading literature will be controlled by a few companies due to the proprietary nature of their devices

Well today, we saw the first, albeit accidental according to Amazon, on how this media can be out of our control on content that we are allowed to read according to the following article:

Amazon CEO apologizes for deleting Orwell books

Amazon somehow “deleted” all of George Orwell’s books from everyone’s Kindle.  I find it ironic that it was Orwell since he wrote against the “big brother”, censorship, and totalitarianism in books like 1984 and Animal Farm.  It was these very books that were “erased” from people’s Kindles.

Even though this was an “accident”, it is troubling.  How many more “accidents” will there be and when will it no longer be “accidents”.  With paper books, “accidents” like this cannot happen.  They would have to bust down your door and physically remove the books and that could, in no uncertain terms, be considered an “accident”.

As for me, I will stick with paper for reading and leave the other media, like audio, to music, lectures, and other things that were not in print in the first place.  Oh, I may get the occasional audio book, but I will be reading along with the narrator if I do.

In “Do we Distributists do Distributism a Disservice?” I mentioned that I am “formulating an ambitious project that will look at, as completely as humanly possible, at the complete Catholic Social and Moral teaching.”

The only issue is where to start.  I do not believe it is prudent to begin with specifics.  I believe that solid foundations are not only needed for each of the topics, but a solid foundation of Catholic teachings in general is needed even before those foundations can even be laid.  Even with this foundation, getting into specifics is not wise since there are many sub-topics (of which I have no idea on how many there are) that can be explored. Once a sub-topic is chosen, then one can start to delve into the specifics of each sub-topic and then to the topic as a whole.

The issue is, where to start to even get the foundation.  There are three ways I can think of:

1. Internet: Although there is an abundance of information on the Internet, I would not consider this my primary source.  Yes, one can get ideas, but I would limit it to getting topic and sub-topic ideas, for collecting resources (kind of a bibliography) for further study, and general “discussions” (which is one of the main goals of the project mentioned).
2. Classes: This would probably be the soundest way since one would be getting formal instruction in the topics.  For me, this is viable since I live only fifteen minutes from a Major Seminary.  However, this takes not only time, but also money.  Another drawback is that you need a basic foundation before one can even think of taking general or specific theology courses.  Like I said, this is viable for me, but getting formalized training is more part of my long-term goals.
3. Books/CD’s/Podcasts: For the short term, this is probably the most viable option at the present time.  The nice thing about this way is that you can do this at your leisure and go in whatever direction you want to.  You can use the information collected from the first two to select exactly what you want, when you want.  Yes, this can get expensive, but it will probably be less expensive than classes.

I already have a couple of books I can start with on both Catholic Moral and Social teachings.  I also have some general books and know of a CD series by a well known priest that I may get. I will be starting with those while I research other resources.  I am especially will be keeping a lookout for CD’s and Podcasts.

Yes, I am asking the question, but the title is only part of the question.  The full question is:

Do we Distributists do Distributism a disservice by seemingly not concentrating all aspects of Catholic Social and/or Moral teachings?

We seem to be fixated on the economic and not much more.  There is a kind of tunnel vision that prevents us from looking at Social teachings like distributive justice and workers rights.  This tunnel vision also prevents us from looking at the Moral Teachings that dictates how we must conduct ourselves in all aspects of life.

We think concentrating on the economic, that is, getting business back to the local and family level will be a panacea and all other things will fall into place.  This is not so.  Without implementing the full richness of the Catholic Church’s Social and Moral Teachings, we are deluding ourselves that we are doing God’s will.

I am formulating an ambitious project that will look at, as completely as humanly possible, at the complete Catholic Social and Moral teaching.  I am hoping to do this on-line and get a discussion forum going on the topic.  How and where has not been finalized.  I will probably start with general discussions of each and get into specifics as we go.  One of the specifics I want to do is go through each of the Papal Encyclicals on the topics one by one and do a historical development of the teachings.

Another thing I must look out for is Radical traditionalists (RadTrads) and the Progressives (ModSquad) and the excess baggage each seem to have.  I have no tolerance for either since they both think the Pope is wrong on about almost anything thus making themselves “more Catholic than the Pope”.  If they keep it civil, they will be allowed to stay.  If not, I will boot them as if I am wearing steel-toed boots.  I will not stand for any of their shenanigans.

It should be interesting.

In the past couple of months, there have been several articles on how US cities are or should be considering shrinking, not expanding their infrastructure due to declining population and business activity.

The first of these articles “US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive” appeared in the Telegraph in June and described the plight in Flint Michigan. In the article, it describes the following proposals:

• Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.
• Mr. Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

It goes on about how the group proposing this would like to “concentrate on 50 cities” from a Brookings Institution “study” for the same type of proposals.

The second article I would like to quote “Is right-sizing the right fix?” appeared today in the Detroit Free Press and proposed the following:

• Create a new city master plan, a blueprint for future development and the regrinding of the landscape.
• Identify which parts of the city are most suitable for habitation and development.
• Develop an execution plan that acknowledges any right-sizing will take 25 to 50 years and should be done in 5-year increments to accommodate budget constraints.
• Take a full inventory of all city-owned parcels and develop a plan to clear, clean and assemble them into usable shape.
• Establish state and federal alliances with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Reserve Board to pursue block grants that could be used to relocate residents.
• Build a partnership with private investors willing to support Detroit’s future.

Both of these schemes seem to be the brainchild Dan Kildee who is the chairman of the Genesee County Land Reutilization Council.

Although, the proposals sound nice, they do not do one thing and that is shrink the cities. In both of the scenarios, the areas of the cities do not change at all. If they want to “shrink the cities” they have to break up the cities.

In many areas of the country, city populations have grown not by the influx of people, but by the growing of the city through the incorporation of surrounding areas into the city.

If they want to “shrink” the city, they should “shrink” the city. This means the footprint of the city must shrink, not necessarily become useless “green space”. Each neighborhood must have the right to self-determination. That means they must have the right to vote on whether they want to stay part of the city, become independent, or become part of an adjoining community. In addition, the residents should have the primary say on what use any abandoned land should be used for.

“Shrinking” the city’s actual footprint mean less resources for the “shrinking” tax base. Yes, the burden is shifted but, in many cases, the burden you are shifting to people who have a stake in the success or failure the area. In addition, by breaking into smaller units, the actual bureaucracy could be, at least on the local level, less than dealing with a large city government. Furthermore, keep the Federales out of this.  They will screw it even more with their useless regulations and onerous conditions. Let the cities sink or swim on their own.  That is the only way I see localities learn fiscal and social responsibility.  If things get bad enough, they will be out of office and power. What I am saying is that, the era of big government could be broken with these options.

Personally, I would love to see blighted/abandoned neighborhoods, especially if they are large enough, be returned to a rural/small town state/usage. Unfortunately, most neighborhoods are not large enough for to accomplish this completely on their own. Maybe, if a number of adjoining neighborhoods would secede from a major metropolitan area, it could happen.

Cities need to “shrink”. However, they need to “shrink” in the right way.

For too long, we who subscribe to the concepts of Distributism based on Catholic Social and Moral teachings have sat idly by while the powerbase of the Global Capitalists and Socialists have grown by leaps and bounds until we are at a point where the two have merged in an incestuous relationship with each other.

Individuals are now, for the most part, slaves of either the state or large corporations for their livelihood.  The sheer power over production by the Global Capitalist and the out of control regulatory state of Socialism have made it practically impossible for individuals to be free of either and be able to survive.

We must start fighting and put into practice what we subscribe to even it means separating our selves from the mainstream economy.  Of course, separating ourselves may not be a bad thing since both Global Capitalism and Socialism are plagues on society just like their siblings plagues Relativism, Liberalism, and Socialism.  A little “white market” competition to the current “black market” systems would be a good thing.  Yes, I am calling Global Capitalism and Socialism “black market systems because of the immorality that is interwoven into both.

This, however, does not mean cutting ourselves off from society.  We must interact with the Capitalist and Socialist heathens to bring them back into a moral and just system.   The more we can bring over to our way of thinking economically, morally, and socially the better it will be for society and may actually prevent the impending implosion of society as a whole from the aforementioned plagues.

After completing “Is Man Meant for Urban Living?”and “Is Man Meant for Urban Living? (Part 2)“, I have started to stock of my own life.  Currently, I live in a suburb just outside of Detroit and have a job that, for the most part, I enjoy.  Saying that, I keep feeling that there is more that I could do by simplifying my life.

I am one of those who, although grew up in a housing plan, spent a lot of time in rural Western Pennsylvania since where we lived bordered on farm county.  Although I could not become a farmer by trade (and definitely not raise animals for food), I would love to find a plot of land somewhere and do enough growing to not have to buy the overpriced stuff at the supermarket.

Where to do it, it another thing all together.  Due to finding a parish that I finally feel comfortable in due to its orthodox Catholic Teaching and reverent Mass, I would prefer to stay in this area.  Another reason to stay in the area is that the priests that run the Confraternity of the Holy Guardian Angels are also stationed at my parish and one of them is my regular confessor.

What I will be looking for is about 10 to 20 acres that far enough out that I would have my  privacy but close enough to where I work and my parish.

On thing I did not bring up in “Is Man Meant for Urban Living?” is the question: Is urban Living even healthy.  It is my opinion that the general health of urban dwellers is much lower than it is for people living in smaller towns and rural areas.   There are a number of reasons I say this:

1. Pollution – There is not refuting that the pollution in urban areas is much worse than smaller towns and rural areas.  And where does that pollution go? Yes, right into our bodies.   Oh, people will say that cities are going green with more parks, but the pollution is still there.  And that is only outside.  They say that indoor are is even worse. And where do most people work in urban areas? You guessed it, in buildings.  Yes, there is pollution in rural areas, but there is, for most cases, a lot less.
2. Sedentary Lifestyle – One of the “advantages” advocates of city living tout is the various “activities” people can do.  Yes, there is a lot to do, but the majority of it is not “active”, it is sitting and watching other people.  I do not call that active.  In addition, everything is nearby or you have to drive to it.  Little exercise there.  And again, there is work.  Paper pushing for the majority of urban dwellers is not work.  Yes, people say they exercise, but that may be for one hour a day, in dirty air.   Kind of negates the possible benefits.  In rural area, much of the work is outside (especially if you live on a farm) and that is also your exercise.   Yes, there are people who work indoors in rural and small towns, but many of those people go home and do work around the yard or even tend a small (or even larger) garden.
3. Poor diet - This kind of goes with #2, but I decided to separate it.  Another of the “advantages” advocates of city living tout is the variety of foods one can eat.  Yeah tight, most of it is either fast (i.e. fat) food or, if it is more upscale, is made with rich sauces or in portions not meant for one meal.  Yes, there are restaurants in rural areas.  In fact, I have a distant cousin who runs one, but restaurant dining is much less frequent.  You cook your own food, much if you may grow or raise yourself.  I know when I cook myself; it is a lot healthier and a lot less fat.
4. My final point in this diatribe is kind of related to point #1, but it is a different type of pollution. And that is Diseases. With the close proximity of people to each other, diseases (both viral and bacteria based) spread more easily.  You see the effect of that in offices. One person comes down with something and soon it spreads to the whole office.  In addition, it seems that once one catches something, it lingers for much longer and you are liable to catch it again and again due to mutations in the strains going around.
   .
   This is exceptionally troubling with people talking about the Swine Flu “pandemic” going on.  It is not even flu season and this thing is spreading.   Would it spread as much is people were more spread out?  I am not a doctor, but I have a feeling the answer would be no for a couple of reason.  The first is obvious; the close proximity makes it spread faster.  The second is that, in my opinion, people are relatively healthier in rural and small town settings due to the combination of the first three points

I heard on the radio that most big cities are experiencing a resurgence of population.  This does not bode well for a large portion of the human population.   All it will take is some pandemic worse than the current Swine Flu “pandemic” to cause mass deaths.  And, with the increase global interconnection of society, this pandemic can easily spread from one urban area to another.

Yes, moving to a rural area is not a panacea and will not completely protect one from every ill that plagues urban society, but one will probably healthier in the long run.

In reading An Essay on the Restoration of Property by Hillarie Belloc, I have come across some of his ideas that need to be considered on how we can break the grip of Global Capitalism.  Now, in his day, it was not called “Global Capitalism”.  That is a more current phenomenon.  He called in “large units” or “economic unit” since, at the time of this work; most companies were still relegated to country boundaries.  He goes on to describe two types of “economic units” as “necessarily large” and what I would define as “developed”.

In dealing with these “economic units”, he proposed a four-fold approach:

1. In the case of the “necessarily large”, “we must watch every opportunity of substituting the smaller unit for the larger whenever a new discovery permits this; but where there is no such opportunity, where large unit is inevitable, we must control either for the purpose of creating well-distributed property thereof, or for the purpose of managing the use as a communal concern”.  (pg. 66)
2. “Where amalgamation and the formation of large units is due not to the nature of instrument but to unchecked competition, we must deliberately reverse the process, as in the case of shopkeepers and craftsman.” (pg. 67)
3. “In all cases where separately owned shares in the unit are possible (and that is nearly always possible) we should aim at creating the largest possible number of shareholders and at preventing the growth of large blocks of shares under the one control.” (pg. 66)
4. “We should especially act against that typical modern evil which may be called ‘irresponsible control,” whereby the economic unit is manages without real responsibility to the shareholders, and even without the real possession  by those who control them.” (pg. 66)

He then goes on to describe each in detail and possible solutions to each including taxation on larger and “with the revenue subsidizing the smaller one”, stock distribution to individual or small groups and make it hard for large groups to be formed (again, it seems through penalties and taxation), and the physical breakup of the large into smaller units.  Of these, I really only completely support the breakup option and, partially, the other solutions if they can be accomplished by methods that do not involve progressive type taxation (there are some taxation that could be used, but that is for another posting).

In looking at these four categories, number one is now a rarity today where it cannot be broken up.  The other three exist  (especially number two) in various forms in the public sector.  Again, we are taking about large companies national, and now global, companies.  We are not necessarily talking about small local companies.

The goal is to divide the base into small units that can be managed at the regional or, preferably, the local (and even family) level.  We must break the power that Global Capitalism has on the populace.

Caritas in Veritate

In reading books on the Catholic Land Movement, I have come to the realization that man may not be meant to live in an urban, or even suburban, setting.   In fact, for most of human history, man did not live in large cities or the sprawl that now surrounds them.  It has only really been since the Industrial Revolution, and accelerated after World War I, that a significant proportion of man has migrated toward and lived in large urban settings.  Just since 1900, the percentage of people living in urban areas of the United States has grown from 39.6 to 79.2 in 2000.

Man is a social creature, but urban living does not foster this in a positive way.  Instead of the family being the main social unit (and the Church, most likely, the second), it has been replaced with the workplace, bars, and other institutions that are the antithesis of the family and Church.  Instead of fostering social behavior, it actually promoted isolation in many instances due to the fact that these are not really social interaction as it is meant to be.  This isolationism, in my opinion, is most likely the main factor in the breakup of the family and the increase in anti-social behavior like criminal activity, drug use, and alcoholism.

There are other factors to consider too other than the social interaction like work satisfaction.  I am hoping to discuss this as I get more information on this.

What to do about it is up for discussion.  Not all are suited for the farm. However, I do not believe man can continue to live this way for much longer.   The urbanization of mankind is a blight that must be dealt with.

As for me, I am seriously looking at how I can escape this urban prison.