As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems....

testing
test
[b]test[/b]
test
[h2]test[/h2]

Microsoft whose second-rate products maintain market dominance by "virtue" of unethical and illegal practices.

Sports where "They do not believe in a “level playing field” for opponents" and "winning is the only thing"

It is precisely these qualities that have pervaded the American political system and led to the mess it is in now, not to mention the disdain with which many of us in the English speaking World view it.

One assumes that Buchanan's Republic would still boast a raft of legislation to prevent Organised Labour adopting his ethos.

You know, the "people of the book"...the "chosen race of God"?

Lack of black engineers hurts U.S., Bill Gates says

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=204200534

Variations could exist among industries. This obviously wouldn't be as flexible as capitalism, but it would correct many of the ills of capitalism.

Also, government could ban immoral acts, such as the sale of certain drugs and sex within the government's jurisdiction. Gambling could be banned and stricter regulations established for advertising. Schools could teach Western culture rather than atheist culture. Abortion could be banned. Immigration would be drastically reduced, and what could be produced locally would be preferred over the same imported from even a few counties away.

The emphasis of a healthy society is on virtue, not greed. Our current system is based upon greed, and the traitorous results our just dessert (it's far more profitable to break or change the rules via government, and why not if everyone's out for himself and one can likely get away with it?). We have established a structure as does any other society, and there's no such thing as allowing it to be as is its nature. Similarly, our society expects men to pursue greed, yet those like Bill Gates clearly have nothing more to gain. They pursue money like points in a video game, without proper concern for and indeed at the expense of their own society. He also probably wants to expand Microsoft because its his institution. Additionally, Gates has far too much power.

Chesterton's Outline of Sanity is entertaining and enlightening. As he put it there's a lot of diversity within the label 'distributism.'

Anyway, a favorite example of Chesterton's was that monogamous peasant societies prevented monopolies from arising just as they prevented harems, though some men are better farmers just as some are better with the ladies. Past a certain size, peasants would put a stop to the expansion, social pressures being the primary tool. I'd like to think that despite the larger size of modern society that the same controls can be reinstated, though sure government power would be more necessary due to the larger size.

The goal not being economic equality in the least, but rather a more localised and less extreme inequality. A business that is doing well ought to enjoy its success, but a man who focuses too much on profits and such can become harmful to the community. It's better that he focus on his family and community more than attempt a corporate empire.

Dr. Francis, though I never met him, used to appear quite critical of capitalism in his writings. I suspect he found it led to the managerial state that is our great enemy today. I've been somewhat of a populist for as long as I've been interested in politics and I'm also a Southerner so distributist ideas seem natural to me, now that I've been introduced to them. For me distributism was like a hammer shattering my ideological cage, of which I already had strong doubts about. Once shattered, I was free to consider what systems were best for a civilisation's longevity and strength, and admittedly I'm still learning. Such may well lead to too much free thought, but capitalism does at least seem to be a bad tradition, and there are older traditions to fall back on.

My apologies for the quick, jumbled response, but it's all I've time for atm. I figure it'd be more rude of me to not respond at all, until much later that is.

Frank,

"... haven’t you ever wondered why Marx thought capitalism would lead to socialism? ..."

Your choice of words here is ambiguous. Intolerable conditions do often "lead to" drastic changes for the better, since times immemorial. Which hardly implies that "good life consists of misery". Marx merely considered that necessary "building block" of his future socialism was the "proletariat", by which term he referred to the brutally exploited factory workers of his own era: no industrial capitalism – no proletariat, no proletariat – no socialism. That is what he meant by "capitalism would lead to socialism" - and certainly not that one is somehow "part" of the other.

One cannot agree more with your description of "global capitalism", aka "gobalization", of today. But "free market sans capitalism" would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it?...