When I talk about energy, I am not just talking about Electricity.  I am also talking about fuels to run vehicles and machinery, and to heat homes and businesses.  Yes, some, if not much, of this can be produced locally, but could it be enough to adequately and reliably serve the needs of any sizable population.

If there were a sufficient amount of natural resources like coal, oil, and/or natural gas, I guess the needed infrastructure could be created to utilize those resources.  But not all areas have those resources in any appreciable quantities.

That means that alternative resources have to be found.  Yes, wind and solar can be used, but they can be unreliable at best. If there were a way to store the produced electricity for any appreciable amount of time then maybe they could be a more viable option.

Biofuels are an option for fuels, however, at the present time, utilizes resources that are best left for their intended uses.  Saying that, there are a myriad of technologies being developed that will allow biofuels to be created from waste material, weed trees, and even algae that will produce better yields and varieties than what is currently produced from feedstock like corn and soybeans.  However, theses are either years away or are proprietary at the present time.  This means we would have to wait or rely on others for the technologies.

Now one can say that do we really need these types of energies to survive?  The answer is no, but are people willing to go back that far in time (even though it is really only about a century since much of this has been available to the populace).  In most cases, I would say it would be a resounding NO.

In conclusion, if the natural resources were available, then I would say that, yes, there is a greater possibility of creating a truly local society.  If there were not, I would say it would be hard, but not impossible, for those who are willing to go without.

There are other reasons that it would be hard to “go local”, but those are easier to overcome and subjects for future entries.

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.

Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic Social Teaching articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (indirect socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be carried out by most socialist ideologies). Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production.”This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.

Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order opposing both socialism and capitalism. Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives and family owned, small businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.

Invariably, I get a response like the following (which happened tonight):

Hmmm, this sounds rather like an endorsement of widespread stock ownership in corporations. That increases the number of capitalists, distributes corporate ownership widely, and avoids the concentration of power that one often found among 19th century “robber barons.”

In fact, most people in the U.S. today are stockholders of corporations, either directly, or indirectly through holding ownership interest by means of 401K’s, IRA’s, and pension plans and ESOP’s.

Knowing this is not the case, I responded with:

Not really. It is a common misconception that I have encountered before.

You may have “ownership” but no power. The real power is with the few big (majority) stock owners. Distributism is geared towards the family owned, co-op or (in some instances) small business. Essentially, pre-industrial revolution/protestant rebellion/Adam Smith/socialism eras where there was no real concentration of wealth/goods/production in a handful of powerful Global Corporations/Socialist Governments.

I would like to add that my economic philosophy is a combination of Distributism, Catholic Land Movement, and Catholic Workers Movement. I am still trying to get a synergy between them and other parts of my whole life philosophy.

I am still working on how I can change/add in the future to answer this “mental blockade”? I have ask my fellow Distributist brethren on another group for suggestions. Hopefully, they will come up with a “battering ram” to break the “mental blockade”.

Handmade Toy Alliance

Handmade toys may soon be illegal in the United States.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that they would already be illegal, if toymakers and others hadn’t gotten together and fought back. Now they need our help.

Illegal handmade toys?

Illegal handmade toys may sound like an embarrassing attempt at satire. Or the more embarrassing ravings of an unembarrassed consipracy theorist. But it’s the sober fact. As the toymakers explain:

Read more

A large Chinese Company cause the toy scare and what does the US do? Go after the Chinese? No, they go after the little person in the US that competes with the Chinese Company. This is a perfect example of Socialism and Global Capitalism conspiring for domination. This is also why they both must be stopped and replaced by a Governmental/Economic/and Societal structure based on Catholic Social and Moral Doctrines.

While I can see living and working conditions at the time he is writing this book to be very similar allegorically, I also see where it can be applied today.  With the recent economic downturn, it seem the employers (Pharaoh) are making employees (Israelites) do more with less resources (working more hours to make up for less manpower).

Yes, living conditions have improved, but at what cost.  We are (wage) slaves to companies who know we need them for our livelihood.

Global Capitalism has only made this worse since more and more power is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  I can hear it now “but we can own stock in those companies”.  Yes, we can, however the real power is resides with the few top shareholders, many of which are the executives of the company in question.  This is not real ownership. Pope Leo XIII wrote in Rerum Novarum:

The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.

Does this mean abandoning the current global capitalistic system.  Yes it does, but not for Socialism which is the main competing economic model these days (and makes the State equivalent to Pharaoh).  Distributism (of which Fr. McNabb was one) provides a solution and that is the breakup up of the Global Capitalist Economic model and return ownership and means of production back to local (i.e. family) level.

This should be our Exodus, but who will be our Moses?

Russian gas flow halted through Ukraine to Europe

This is proof that we must move away from “globalization” and back to local economies when possible.  Whether it is food, energy, or other necessities, we must develop and maintain a local supply of goods.

Most necessities can be produced locally once the infrastructure is in place.   This includes energy due to the emerging technologies (i.e. Fuels from algae, waste, wind, and the likes). This  does mean that we will have to go without certain things during parts of the year, but that is how it was done in the past.

Another advantage is that local economies will be more insulated from the wild swings caused by the “global economy”.

This does not mean we cannot import goods.  Far from it.  What it means is that those goods should be considered only after local sources are exhausted or for certain luxury items.

Materialism is one of the main ravages of civilization.  Global reliance on goods only fuels this plague.  We must move away from globalism when all possible and go back to a simpler way of life.  Yes, it will be hard at first. But, we will be better off in the long run.

The following passage may help on this:

Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Hero’di-ans, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men.  Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin.  And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mt. 22: 15-21 RSV)

Yes, we are suppose to support legitimate governments, however, one must remember that God must come first.  Where there is a conflict, we must choose God and His Church over one’s country.  In fact, this goes much further.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”.[1]

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.[2]

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”[3]

1904 “It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.”[4]
————————————————————–
[1] GS 74 # 2.
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2
[3] John XXIII PT 51.
[4] CA 44.

When governents, or even particular man-made “positive laws”, are unjust and in conflict with God’d Natural Law, we are obligated to oppose such “positive laws” and governments.

That is  why I state that I am Catholic first and an American second.  If there is a conflict between the two, country will lose.

WorldNetDaily has an article titled: Record 259 corporations honored for ‘gay’ support.  In it there was a link to the companies that made the list.

Part of rejecting the world is to avoid (if possible) those who knowingly support and advance the perversions of the world and are so inflexible of their support that it is doubtful that they will never change that position.

While I am not saying we need to immediately boycott these companies, we need to be careful on how we do business with them.  At some point in the future, we may have to cease doing business with them until they change.

It may even come to the point were we will need to set up a separate societal/economic structure separate from the perverse one we now live in.  That is a topic of a thread/poll that I have opened over on Catholic Answers Forums.

The answer is probably yes. Much of the oil money sent to the Middle East ends up in the hands of groups like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the likes.

How? It is mainly through governments like Iran and “religious groups” like the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. There is strong evidence that both Iran and the Wahhabists both train and give financial aide to the terrorist groups. This evidence is too lengthy to go into here, but it is out there. Of course, most of these sources reporting this are considered “conservative” and/or “right wing” propagandists and is ignored by most in the Main Stream Media (which have their own agenda).

We need to break our need for oil by finding replacements for it. Bio-Fuels (non foodstock like corn based as I have said before), nuclear and other energy sources must be research and implemented. The sooner the better. Energy independence is a defeat for our enemies.

1. Farmers are starting to pull land that the government has been paying them to not plant back into production. This has been reported, surprisingly, by the NY Times: As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation Program. It is only a small drop. Even if they keep it as “grassland”, it can become a material source for biofuels by planting grasses like switchgrass which takes little tending to.
2. The possibility of replacing undesirable crops with ones that can be used for food or biofuels. One that comes immediately to mind is tobacco. Many crops (including corn) can be planted in the same area as tobacco. Some of these even have more potential (i.e. higher yield and lower cost) than corn for use in biofuels.
3. A third, and least likely is the rethinking of the ban on hemp (the “industrial” kind not the “other” type which I do not, in any way, advocate the use of). Hemp can be used for many purposes including food, clothing, and biofuels.

What is happening is capitalism correcting the inefficient programs of government management of sectors of the economy. Hopefully more of this will happen.