Distributism and the military and business establishments that need to be big

[itrytofight]

Don’t know if this is the right place to put it, but I’ll ask anyways.

To all those in favor of distributism (aka Chesterton Readers):

How would distributism incorporate a military such as ours, with all its infantry, tanks, fighter craft, bombers, Intercotinental Missiles, ships, subs, infastructure, etc, etc?

I’ve heard that we could establish a Guard unit and have the universal conscription thing to prevent us from going to a stupid war after another stupid war. But how will it work with the big factories that we need to produce are weaponry?

Also, about businesses that need to be big to work, like automobile or aiviation corporations, maybe even the gaming industry, how can we incorporate them into the distributism system?

Chesterton said something about Guilds, how would that work?

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are a lot of versions of “Distributism”. I think I can safely say, however, that Distributist thought generally favors devolving responsibility for the various societal functions upon the most proximate EFFECTIVE level. At present, it seems unlikely, at least to me, that the most proximate effective level for defense is anything but the federal level. If so, it then it would seem to follow that uniformity and coordination in the production of defense materiel would necessarily need to be pretty centralized.

Certain kinds of industries might, however, be less centralized than they are. But I am not an industrial expert, so I could not be sure what concerns might be less centralized and what not. One is tempted, however, to be skeptical of the “necessity” of extreme concentration when the concerns involved “buy protection” from competition from the government, even when smaller concerns could fill all or part of the need. Phillip Morris and the big pharmaceutical companies might be good examples of that.

So might be the case with certain types of social aid functions. I am not persuaded there is any inherent reason why, e.g., states could not be the most proximate effective sources of most forms of welfare. The problem is, of course, that the federal government consumes such a vast quantity of the national income that not much is left for states and local governments or, for that matter, charitable organizations.

So, when it comes to deciding what the most EFFECTIVE level of delivery might be for any one thing, federal preemption, as a practical matter, makes it moot. And the direction seems to be toward even more of the same. That’s not to say, however, that the concept is unworthy of debate.

I think one of the things often ignored by those who talk about “Distributism” (which term the Popes never used, though Distributist though is largely based ont the Social Encyclicals) is its role among individuals and families. A good part of it is actually a matter of individual and family choices and actions. Do we, for example, squander everything we earn on popular consumer goods, or do we try to provide for ourselves in the future by saving and investing? Do we blithely assume (and demand) that the government provide “X” for us and burden others to provide it for us, when we might, by exercising prudence provide it for ourselves?

 

[itrytofight]

There are a lot of versions of “Distributism”. I think I can safely say, however, that Distributist thought generally favors devolving responsibility for the various societal functions upon the most proximate EFFECTIVE level. At present, it seems unlikely, at least to me, that the most proximate effective level for defense is anything but the federal level. If so, it then it would seem to follow that uniformity and coordination in the production of defense materiel would necessarily need to be pretty centralized.

Certain kinds of industries might, however, be less centralized than they are. But I am not an industrial expert, so I could not be sure what concerns might be less centralized and what not. One is tempted, however, to be skeptical of the “necessity” of extreme concentration when the concerns involved “buy protection” from competition from the government, even when smaller concerns could fill all or part of the need. Phillip Morris and the big pharmaceutical companies might be good examples of that.

So might be the case with certain types of social aid functions. I am not persuaded there is any inherent reason why, e.g., states could not be the most proximate effective sources of most forms of welfare. The problem is, of course, that the federal government consumes such a vast quantity of the national income that not much is left for states and local governments or, for that matter, charitable organizations.

So, when it comes to deciding what the most EFFECTIVE level of delivery might be for any one thing, federal preemption, as a practical matter, makes it moot. And the direction seems to be toward even more of the same. That’s not to say, however, that the concept is unworthy of debate.

I think one of the things often ignored by those who talk about “Distributism” (which term the Popes never used, though Distributist though is largely based ont the Social Encyclicals) is its role among individuals and families. A good part of it is actually a matter of individual and family choices and actions. Do we, for example, squander everything we earn on popular consumer goods, or do we try to provide for ourselves in the future by saving and investing? Do we blithely assume (and demand) that the government provide “X” for us and burden others to provide it for us, when we might, by exercising prudence provide it for ourselves?

Thanks for answering!

 

[manualman]

To elaborate on RR, Distributism does not need to (and probably shouldn’t) be based on heavy handed government breakups of large business. IMO (and this is just me), distributism would BEST be introduced by a series of legislative efforts that restructure legal and tax policy to the advantage of SMALL business rather than consolidated mega-corporations. If there were tax disadvantages to being as large as Citibank, for example, then such a megalith would likely never form in the first place. Then if one or even several of the smaller banks failed, it could fail and not need tens of billions of tax dollars to avoid utter catastrophe.

3 things:

1. Change the law so a corporation isn’t a “person” in law. Persons should always have superior rights to corporations. This would go a long way to offsetting the advantage corporations enjoy over startups and small businessmen.
2. Set tax policy to tax larger companies more than smaller ones. This offsets some of the economy of scales enjoyed by the big boys and makes it possible for new entries into mature markets.
3. Dust off the Sherman anti-trust act and actually USE the darn thing once in a while, will ya?