Bleg for New Distributist Non-Profit
Richard Aleman, web editor for the Distributist publication The ChesterBelloc Mandate, informs me that he and his associates at that publication are in the process of filing for non-profit status.
The organization's general purpose will be similar to that of the original Distributist League: the distribution of educational materials, and sponsorship of lectures and conferences.
They are currently compiling a mailing list for updates on the organization's activities. They promise that your information will be kept confidential and not shared with third parties. If you're interested, you can send an email with your city, state/province, and country of residence (no requirement to provide your name if you prefer not to), to societyfordistributism@gmail.com.
BTW, a post by John Medaille at the same blog includes this quote, which readers of my work will understand is preaching to the choir for me:
The organization's general purpose will be similar to that of the original Distributist League: the distribution of educational materials, and sponsorship of lectures and conferences.
They are currently compiling a mailing list for updates on the organization's activities. They promise that your information will be kept confidential and not shared with third parties. If you're interested, you can send an email with your city, state/province, and country of residence (no requirement to provide your name if you prefer not to), to societyfordistributism@gmail.com.
BTW, a post by John Medaille at the same blog includes this quote, which readers of my work will understand is preaching to the choir for me:
Three-fourths of all "social justice" issues are simply a matter of accurate cost-accounting; that is, of allocating costs back to those who cause the costs.
posted by Kevin Carson | 11:25 AM
3 Comments:
There is a subtle point about 'Three-fourths of all "social justice" issues are simply a matter of accurate cost-accounting; that is, of allocating costs back to those who cause the costs'
Philosophically, yes; only, think how it works out as practical policy. Taking the costs after they have been misplaced and then putting them back means additional machinery - leading naturally to having more imposed, i.e. government, functions - while engineering them out so they don't go astray in the first place means removing parasitical structure.
Where would one of my own proposals, a Negative Payroll Tax, fit in? Introducing one from scratch would be net additional machinery, because that would need introducing a broad based positive tax with impact on actual and potential employers to carry it. It is only a net improvement as a transitional step starting from where we are now, with taxes already in place and the Negative Payroll Tax reducing them; the long term aim would be much more Distributist in form, style and content, essentially a Basic Income drawn from personal rather than state resources (it has to be only a top up income on average, not a decent living wage - the numbers don't add up for the latter).
Dear Kevin,
I hope you like:
http://acao-humana.blogspot.com/2008/04/os-quatro-grandes-de-tucker-o-monoplio.html
Sincerely.
Thanks very much for your effort in translating this, Guilherme.
Post a Comment
<< Home