Distributism

[Tolkien R.R.J]

My short piece on Distributism

Smith: Distributism | Commentary | rutlandherald.com

Unlike capitalism and socialism, which centralize power in national political parties and their corporate allies in D.C., distributism seeks to localize economic and political power. Its aim is to disperse land ownership, money, means of production, political power and so on, to families and local business owners rather than politicians and major corporations. The goal is to create as many self-sufficient families and communities as possible, free from government or corporate influence, and for all to achieve liberty by producing for themselves.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, as governments raised taxes and imposed regulations while corporations manipulated the economy, millions in Europe were forced from their land, leaving them no choice but to migrate to cities to work in inhumane factory conditions. Distributism proposes a “third way” aimed at ensuring all families can own property and access the means of production. According to distributism, people ought to have liberty to provide for themselves without interference from outside forces or manipulation to serve the interests of a national economy, free from bosses or governmental forces, with rights to private property and the means of production for survival. In a distributist society, crafting, farming and different trades would be passed down the generations unhindered by outside forces. Further, distributism requires no property tax, no or few regulations, low taxation generally, no government bailouts or subsidies for major corporations, etc

Each family would constitute a small society, managing its own minor kingdom and producing for itself. Politics and economics would be localized within small, close-knit, like-minded communities that govern themselves, where trade and barter take place. Governance would be almost entirely at this local level. Only what could not be done at the family level would pass to the town level; only what could not be done at the town level would be managed at the county or state level. The higher level would do only what the lower level could not, so the government would be localized — there would be no need for centralized state or national political parties.

Undisturbed by an outside majority in Montpelier or D.C., self-government would be restored, allowing families to serve as the primary power bloc and local communities to control their own policies. This would allow for a wide diversity of systems, permitting us to move, live with, and be governed by like-minded people. One town might be libertarian, the next socialist, the next Republican, and so on. No distant majority would overpower political minorities, robbing them of the politics of their choice. The need for elections, politics, fundraising, etc., would dissipate; hatred, anger and frustration over these issues would disperse.

Many issues Vermonters care about would be solved. We could significantly reduce motor vehicle travel and CO2 emissions by decentralizing our economy and food system. People would be less reliant on cars, as many would live close to where they work, leading to fewer car accidents and less anxiety associated with a fast-paced lifestyle.

Additionally, we could eliminate the use of harmful chemicals, plastics, preservatives and other substances that contaminate our planet’s air and water — and our bodies. These chemicals and packaging materials are often necessary to preserve food for long-distance transport in our heavily subsidized factory-food system. Furthermore, many of these substances are utilized to keep animals alive in inhumane conditions within factory farming operations.

The tomato you buy at the grocery store has been bred to endure travel in a cardboard box, not with your health in mind. Many health issues and costs are due to the chemical-ridden, nutrient-deficient food we eat; those would be alleviated. Free-range organic farming would return, allowing local farmers to thrive without profit pressures, property taxes or strict regulations. They wouldn’t have to compete with subsidized factory food, creating an open, local market instead.

Cheaper, healthier food, less pollution, more liberty, strengthened family life, more local control: What’s not to like about distributism?

 

[expos4ever]

Do you not think that the model you are proposing would take away all sorts of opportunities to improve the human condition that require large complex organization to pull off? Take pursuit of a cure for cancer, for example. As much as I empathize with the "spirit" of what you are suggesting, tackling a problem like cancer cannot be undertaken in these distributed collectives - I would think that we need hundreds of thousands of trained experts, "public" funding, and appropriate large-scale governance and regulation.

I am moving toward the position that the optimal solution to most problems is actually a combination of all the "isms" out there - the real world, sadly, does not lend itself to solutions based on a single conceptual model. That last clause is probably vague so let me offer concrete examples. First, take pacifism: while it seems like a noble concept with great potential to greatly reduce needless human suffering, I think there are clearly some situations where violence is the best moral option. Second, consider freedom of speech: again, while this seems like a noble idea that would make the world a better place, I think we must regulate against certain forms of what has been called "hate speech" for example.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Do you not think that the model you are proposing would take away all sorts of opportunities to improve the human condition that require large complex organization to pull off? Take pursuit of a cure for cancer, for example. As much as I empathize with the "spirit" of what you are suggesting, tackling a problem like cancer cannot be undertaken in these distributed collectives - I would think that we need hundreds of thousands of trained experts, "public" funding, and appropriate large-scale governance and regulation.

I am moving toward the position that the optimal solution to most problems is actually a combination of all the "isms" out there - the real world, sadly, does not lend itself to solutions based on a single conceptual model. That last clause is probably vague so let me offer concrete examples. First, take pacifism: while it seems like a noble concept with great potential to greatly reduce needless human suffering, I think there are clearly some situations where violence is the best moral option. Second, consider freedom of speech: again, while this seems like a noble idea that would make the world a better place, I think we must regulate against certain forms of what has been called "hate speech" for example.

Indeed. I don't think it would abolish them but it would harm/slow those benefits. But i think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Take cancer, you can trace the origins of the industrial food system to various societies linking it to many forms of cancer, heart disease and so on. While centralization might help cure cancer (so far what have they really done? they have not cured it) it also helps create it!

Agreed with your second paragraph. But i think diversity can provide the best answer. No one set way.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you not think that the model you are proposing would take away all sorts of opportunities to improve the human condition that require large complex organization to pull off? Take pursuit of a cure for cancer, for example. As much as I empathize with the "spirit" of what you are suggesting, tackling a problem like cancer cannot be undertaken in these distributed collectives - I would think that we need hundreds of thousands of trained experts, "public" funding, and appropriate large-scale governance and regulation.

I am moving toward the position that the optimal solution to most problems is actually a combination of all the "isms" out there - the real world, sadly, does not lend itself to solutions based on a single conceptual model. That last clause is probably vague so let me offer concrete examples. First, take pacifism: while it seems like a noble concept with great potential to greatly reduce needless human suffering, I think there are clearly some situations where violence is the best moral option. Second, consider freedom of speech: again, while this seems like a noble idea that would make the world a better place, I think we must regulate against certain forms of what has been called "hate speech" for example.

In most of the world, managed market economies work, as long as there is democratic participation and support for the rule of law.

 

[Jermayn]

My short piece on Distributism

Smith: Distributism | Commentary | rutlandherald.com

Unlike capitalism and socialism, which centralize power in national political parties and their corporate allies in D.C., distributism seeks to localize economic and political power. Its aim is to disperse land ownership, money, means of production, political power and so on, to families and local business owners rather than politicians and major corporations. The goal is to create as many self-sufficient families and communities as possible, free from government or corporate influence, and for all to achieve liberty by producing for themselves.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, as governments raised taxes and imposed regulations while corporations manipulated the economy, millions in Europe were forced from their land, leaving them no choice but to migrate to cities to work in inhumane factory conditions. Distributism proposes a “third way” aimed at ensuring all families can own property and access the means of production. According to distributism, people ought to have liberty to provide for themselves without interference from outside forces or manipulation to serve the interests of a national economy, free from bosses or governmental forces, with rights to private property and the means of production for survival. In a distributist society, crafting, farming and different trades would be passed down the generations unhindered by outside forces. Further, distributism requires no property tax, no or few regulations, low taxation generally, no government bailouts or subsidies for major corporations, etc

Each family would constitute a small society, managing its own minor kingdom and producing for itself. Politics and economics would be localized within small, close-knit, like-minded communities that govern themselves, where trade and barter take place. Governance would be almost entirely at this local level. Only what could not be done at the family level would pass to the town level; only what could not be done at the town level would be managed at the county or state level. The higher level would do only what the lower level could not, so the government would be localized — there would be no need for centralized state or national political parties.

Undisturbed by an outside majority in Montpelier or D.C., self-government would be restored, allowing families to serve as the primary power bloc and local communities to control their own policies. This would allow for a wide diversity of systems, permitting us to move, live with, and be governed by like-minded people. One town might be libertarian, the next socialist, the next Republican, and so on. No distant majority would overpower political minorities, robbing them of the politics of their choice. The need for elections, politics, fundraising, etc., would dissipate; hatred, anger and frustration over these issues would disperse.

Many issues Vermonters care about would be solved. We could significantly reduce motor vehicle travel and CO2 emissions by decentralizing our economy and food system. People would be less reliant on cars, as many would live close to where they work, leading to fewer car accidents and less anxiety associated with a fast-paced lifestyle.

Additionally, we could eliminate the use of harmful chemicals, plastics, preservatives and other substances that contaminate our planet’s air and water — and our bodies. These chemicals and packaging materials are often necessary to preserve food for long-distance transport in our heavily subsidized factory-food system. Furthermore, many of these substances are utilized to keep animals alive in inhumane conditions within factory farming operations.

The tomato you buy at the grocery store has been bred to endure travel in a cardboard box, not with your health in mind. Many health issues and costs are due to the chemical-ridden, nutrient-deficient food we eat; those would be alleviated. Free-range organic farming would return, allowing local farmers to thrive without profit pressures, property taxes or strict regulations. They wouldn’t have to compete with subsidized factory food, creating an open, local market instead.

Cheaper, healthier food, less pollution, more liberty, strengthened family life, more local control: What’s not to like about distributism?

While this looks good on paper, there's no way you could implement this without a massive percentage of people dying to starvation, at least in a western country. If you tried this in America every major city would become a giant graveyard within 3 months. This model also assumes that everyone is going to play by the rules in the absence of an outside entity enforcing laws. Those with the means to produce more would eventually take over.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

While this looks good on paper, there's no way you could implement this without a massive percentage of people dying to starvation, at least in a western country. If you tried this in America every major city would become a giant graveyard within 3 months. This model also assumes that everyone is going to play by the rules in the absence of an outside entity enforcing laws. Those with the means to produce more would eventually take over.

Difficult, yes, but I think possible. I will post when it is published!!