Is Distributism utopian?

[David_Castlen]

So who distributes the property to see that it is widely distributed in small holdings? How is this not wealth redistribution?

???Where have I posted in support of state bailouts of their cronies (Goldman Sachs, etc)?? That is not private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution, that is the state claiming ultimate ownership of alll and redistributing it to their cronies…socialism. The powerless Progressives (as distinguished from the Obammunists) simply want THEIR cronies on the receiving end (feminists, homosexuals, Marxist teachers), it’s the same socialism/communism.
The bigness of business is not the problem, the problem is the state creating regs that enslave and subject the rest of us to them distorting the market and protecting them from competition, “sanitation” laws preventing the farmer from selling raw milk, unprocessed or “inspected” foods depriving him economic access and the public of healthy food on the pretext of “public safety”. Distributism would still put economic power in the state that will inevitably corrupt and cronies would receive special treatment, that is the nature of man. Once allowed a monopoly on aggression (that IS the state) there is no way to stop them as we currently see, the Constitutional limits on government are worthless and ignored. You are blaming business for playing the game that the state has set up. The state has the power, the monopoly on aggression and they SELL it to the highest bidders (“lobbyists”). It is a legalized mafia…except even the mafia realizes you have to make a living and do not require you to love them. What you see going on now is not capitalism, although statists of various stripes are doing their darndest to redefine it as such and to eradicate the idea of private property from Western thought.

You go Cho, excellent!!!

 

[Warrenton]

Quite an intelectual empty reply as to how those seven words have to be understood.

Why hang around a catholic forum, when you believe that any tree that produces at least one single bad fruit is a bad tree?

The church produced at least one bad fruit.

Let’s leave my motives for participating in this forum for another thread, or you can PM me and I’ll let you in on my devilishly clever plan to spread world communism by posing as an arch traditionalist Roman Catholic.

Regards intellectual emptiness (note the spelling, there ) , it is certainly a bit thin to trot out the priest abuse scandal in a thread on Distributism, don’t you think?

I don’t deny that the method has become somewhat predictable among a certain class of participants, but it is predicatable, and tiresome, in the same way that some democrats brought up the “stolen Bush election” for 8 long years, regardless of whether the issue was Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing crisis, or the Wall Street scandals. Notwithstanding its titallation value (for some), it really is beside the point.

I should not have expected the scriptural citation about bad trees to have been difficult to grasp, but in the interest of clarity, here goes:

Our present system of state controlled capitalism (or is it a capitalist controlled state?) could not survive a fortnight without the enforced theft of billions of dollars worth of private property. The army of lobbyists in Washington monopolize access to the government and ensure that the regulations govern almost every aspect of commerce favor their large clients at the expense of everyone else. The FDA, is a shining example of the trend. The redistribution of wealth that transpires every April illustrates how the government assists capital interests in taking the money of Americans, and paying it to the banks that hold the national debt, or are the recipients of the government’s largesse via stupendous “bailouts” and TARP money given away by the truckload to improvident capitalists. In turn, that is where the banks get the money to finance investments.

Moving on, the railroads, highways, electrical grid, mining and power industries all rely on a steady stream of takings under the government’s power of imminent domain, under which the people’s property is taken at below market rate with no consideration to actual utility and given to someone else. The Supreme Court’s decision Kelo v. New London is, again, a shining example of the practice in action.

Extol capitalism as the system that protects private property to the heavens. But let’s be accurate, our system protects it by confirming the title of thieves to what they have stolen, at least in substantial measure.

As should be obvious by now, I am not aiming at a few bad apples, but the tree itself.

If you have read my other posts, you will know that there are forms of capitalism - even rapacious capitalism - that I like. Clearly, though, the present system requires reforming. Conceptually, it would not be terribly difficult to accomplish, but politically next to impossible. That is why Distributist ideas, which focus on the individual or small collective intiative, are helpful in framing such a debate.

 

[Cho]

But what tree? The state or capitalism? Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. ALL of the abuses you listed are abuses on the part of the STATE to benefit a crony, an abuse of power. Take away the state and how could any “capitalist” (owner of private property) take anything from anyone? There would be constant innovation and competition from others with free economic access. That in itself would probably guarantee the wide distribution of wealth/property that Distributionists claim to want. Unless succeeding generations were able to do what the original wealth creator did the property would eventually be dispersed.

 

[Cho]

Distributism is nothing like socialism, and has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. And what do you think taking from our children and grandchildren and fiving it to Golsman Sachs, et al, is? That is the corporo-government form that “capitalism” has morphed into: corporate socialism.

The thing about distributism is that businesses do not become too big to fail. The responsibility does not become so diffused that morality is eradicated by economic considerations. Power does not become so concentrated that the lists of government experts, lobbyists, and corporate board members and executives all look alike over time.

What I see going on now is no advertisement for capitalism on a large scale. Distributism is capitalism on a human scale.

So how is wealth put into the hands of many in small holdings? Exactly HOW is this accomplished and WHOSE job will it be? I have not posted anywhere that I agree with the state confiscating wealth and redistributing it to anyone, That is what I am against. As far as I can tell, Distributism is simply another version of that. Businesses become “too big to fail” because the state is giving them special treatment and bailouts at the expense of others who are not politically connected. If they did not receive this protection and help they would be forced to compete in the free market and either provide goods and services people want or cede market share to competitors who do. No state is needed to “protect” anyone or redistribute wealth or property. The market will do it in the most efficient way possible.

You have no issue with the state having absolute power and abusing it, you just object to the state working for the rich who buy them off. For some reason you believe that the state class is not afflicted with original sin like the rest of us and blithely ignore their crucial part in all of this.
And once again, capitalism is nothing more than private ownership of the means of production and distribution rather than the state owning/controlling it. That is all it EVER was, it is the redefining of corporatism/mercantilism as capitalism by the MSM propagandists that is muddying thinking and making people despise the only thing that can free them from corporate state servitude.

 

[Warrenton]

But what tree? The state or capitalism? Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. ALL of the abuses you listed are abuses on the part of the STATE to benefit a crony, an abuse of power. Take away the state and how could any “capitalist” (owner of private property) take anything from anyone? There would be constant innovation and competition from others with free economic access. That in itself would probably guarantee the wide distribution of wealth/property that Distributionists claim to want. Unless succeeding generations were able to do what the original wealth creator did the property would eventually be dispersed.

True - if we are speaking about capitalism in an ideal state. But if we are talking about it as it exists in the United States, then that is something different. The person who bribes is culpable along with the bribed.

There is a distinction between the capitalist and the property owner. Owners existed before capitalism.

We probably don’t need to address that distinction, though, since we agree on the benefits of capitalism as you defined it.

 

[David_Castlen]

But what tree? The state or capitalism? Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. ALL of the abuses you listed are abuses on the part of the STATE to benefit a crony, an abuse of power. Take away the state and how could any “capitalist” (owner of private property) take anything from anyone? There would be constant innovation and competition from others with free economic access. That in itself would probably guarantee the wide distribution of wealth/property that Distributionists claim to want. Unless succeeding generations were able to do what the original wealth creator did the property would eventually be dispersed.

You see Cho. You recognize what “they” are doing. “They” take the word capitalist and define it otherwise; it is either ambiguitey our out-right equivication. Good insight:thumbsup:

 

[Cho]

True - if we are speaking about capitalism in an ideal state. But if we are talking about it as it exists in the United States, then that is something different. The person who bribes is culpable along with the bribed.

There is a distinction between the capitalist and the property owner. Owners existed before capitalism.

We probably don’t need to address that distinction, though, since we agree on the benefits of capitalism as you defined it.

Private ownership existed but was not defined as such because that was all there was. People understood the concept and also understood that it was immoral to take the fruits of someone elses labor, including through taxation. This is why tax collectors were considered sinners. Taxation has been redefined as “paying our share” and the mindset that Caesar can simply claim ownership to whatever he wants has been brainwashed into people in Marxist “schools”. Taxation is theft and until fairly recent times was understood as such. Caesar claiming a right to control the property of others is a corollary of this. Capitalism is a useful term that simply describes private ownership of property, nothing more, and there is no reason to allow Marxist “intellectuals” to blame the evils of the corporate state on non-state people having the right to own property. It is preposterous. I harp on this distinction because it is important.

 

[Warrenton]

Private ownership existed but was not defined as such because that was all there was.

Let’s not forget the intermediate state of “leasehold.”

More about that below.

People understood the concept and also understood that it was immoral to take the fruits of someone elses labor, including through taxation. This is why tax collectors were considered sinners.

Taxation has been redefined as “paying our share” and the mindset that Caesar can simply claim ownership to whatever he wants has been brainwashed into people in Marxist “schools”.

I’m not certain. I think in state-centered thought (which predates Marxism - though I agree Marxism is in practice totally state-centered), the concept is more akin to the leasehold. The modern state is skeptical of anyone really “owning” anything, in the true sense of having the indefeasible right to use and enjoy something perpetually.

In the eyes of the modern state, we own things conditionally - whether the condition is loyalty to the state, paying taxes, using it lawfully, or having it so long as someone else within the government, or favored by the government, wants it.

Conditional ownership is the same as a lease.

Capitalism is a useful term that simply describes private ownership of property, nothing more

As you define it, we agree.

there is no reason to allow Marxist “intellectuals” to blame the evils of the corporate state on non-state people having the right to own property. It is preposterous. I harp on this distinction because it is important.

Well said.

 

[carn]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

It seems our opinion is not very different. The differences seem to arise from talking about different things. I gave a definition of something i called capitalism:
“capitalism:
Rule of law with basic human rights, wherein the right to own property is not limited by type of property and wherein any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty) is only possible according to laws and such laws are only valid if there is sufficient reason for the interference, which can only arise from the human rights.”

That was replied by tomarin and he said capitalism is by its very nature amoral. I cannot see the amorality in that definition (while i can see on in communism just from definition!!), so i assumed he meant something about how people act under those rules, which could be immoral. There the tree reply came.

I should not have expected the scriptural citation about bad trees to have been difficult to grasp, but in the interest of clarity, here goes:

Our present system of state controlled capitalism (or is it a capitalist controlled state?) could not survive a fortnight without the enforced theft of billions of dollars worth of private property. The army of lobbyists in Washington monopolize access to the government and ensure that the regulations govern almost every aspect of commerce favor their large clients at the expense of everyone else. The FDA, is a shining example of the trend. The redistribution of wealth that transpires every April illustrates how the government assists capital interests in taking the money of Americans, and paying it to the banks that hold the national debt, or are the recipients of the government’s largesse via stupendous “bailouts” and TARP money given away by the truckload to improvident capitalists. In turn, that is where the banks get the money to finance investments.

Moving on, the railroads, highways, electrical grid, mining and power industries all rely on a steady stream of takings under the government’s power of imminent domain, under which the people’s property is taken at below market rate with no consideration to actual utility and given to someone else. The Supreme Court’s decision Kelo v. New London is, again, a shining example of the practice in action.

Extol capitalism as the system that protects private property to the heavens. But let’s be accurate, our system protects it by confirming the title of thieves to what they have stolen, at least in substantial measure.

I can mostly agree, but nopte tha point, that nearly all your criticism include criticism about how the state acts and interfers too much with its subject rights.

Looking at my definition this means, that the states fails to only interefere when there is sufficient reason. So it does not fit what i understand under capitalism. I would call the current systems semi-capitalistic or semi-socialistic differing from state to state. A half-capitalistic system where the state interfers in individual rights without even trying to find sufficient reason but just because it fits the needs of the congress members or other politicians, is rotten at the core.

Therefore i think the way to a more moral state would be cutting back the state both financially and in terms of laws. What i do not like about distributionism is that it would not cut the current state back but would try to heal its flaws by even more state interference. If the initial situation (my above definition) would be moral and that moral situation is lost because the state fails to restrain itself, it looks questionable to solve that error by even more state.

Of course if that ideal of a state, which only interfers in few and limited and necessary ways, is simply impossible because states cannot do that, then distributionism might be the lesser evil. But since there was in practially no country in the world in the last 20 years any succesful attempt to cut the state back (in spite of all neoliberal talk, it was all empty governement spending and number and scop of laws increased all the time), i do not think there is evidence it cannot work. I think its lack of will, because the fear of capitalism is so rooted in everyones mind. The funny thing is, people are afraid of something that they never knew or saw, because capitalism was buried at latest in the 1960s beginning late 19th century.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Private ownership existed but was not defined as such because that was all there was. People understood the concept and also understood that it was immoral to take the fruits of someone elses labor, including through taxation. This is why tax collectors were considered sinners. Taxation has been redefined as “paying our share” and the mindset that Caesar can simply claim ownership to whatever he wants has been brainwashed into people in Marxist “schools”. Taxation is theft and until fairly recent times was understood as such. Caesar claiming a right to control the property of others is a corollary of this. Capitalism is a useful term that simply describes private ownership of property, nothing more, and there is no reason to allow Marxist “intellectuals” to blame the evils of the corporate state on non-state people having the right to own property. It is preposterous. I harp on this distinction because it is important.

:yup::clapping:

Late into this party, and just passing through, but wanted to say that I wish more people understood this concept today. Lots of people swear that we live as capitalists, but that is so untrue. People actually wouldn’t know how to act if all of the enforced theft was gone tomorrow morning. I believe it would seem like anarchy to the dependent class, although it would merely be self-responsibility.

 

[Warrenton]

A half-capitalistic system where the state interfers in individual rights without even trying to find sufficient reason but just because it fits the needs of the congress members or other politicians, is rotten at the core.

Therefore i think the way to a more moral state would be cutting back the state both financially and in terms of laws.

What i do not like about distributionism is that it would not cut the current state back but would try to heal its flaws by even more state interference.

Looking at Distributism from a politically realistic standpoint, I think you are correct (and I have posted the same sentiment elsewhere). What would happen in practice is that the big government/vested interests would hijack the name, pass a few laws against usury, and permit government or government-sponsored banks to make up the shortfall by either (1) raising taxes to to “bail out” the banks’ lost interest, or (2) authorize even more user fees, while passing regulations designed to force us to use the services for which we have to pay a user fee.

That is why I like Distributism as a “local” or individual endeavor, more of a “philosophy in action.”

BTW, I liked how you turned my “bad tree” comment by describing the present system as rotten “to the core.” Very clever

 

[Cho]

Let’s not forget the intermediate state of “leasehold.”

I’m not certain. I think in state-centered thought (which predates Marxism - though I agree Marxism is in practice totally state-centered), the concept is more akin to the leasehold. The modern state is skeptical of anyone really “owning” anything, in the true sense of having the indefeasible right to use and enjoy something perpetually.

In the eyes of the modern state, we own things conditionally - whether the condition is loyalty to the state, paying taxes, using it lawfully, or having it so long as someone else within the government, or favored by the government, wants it.

Conditional ownership is the same as a lease.

As you define it, we agree.

Conditional ownership presumes the state owns all and we are allowed to use/occupy it as long as we pay the state for the “privilege” and the state does not have others willing to pay more. There is absolutely no authority for this presumption of privilege, it is usurpation and tyranny by a political class with a monopoly on aggression against those not of the class. I don’t define capitalism that way, look it up in a dictionary. It is the true meaning of capitalism (and it is the true opposite of communism). Applying that term to the corporate state is an attempt to confuse and to eliminate the concept of private property, the MSM and the elites do it all the time and people do not call them on it or define terms. If there is no term for it, an idea becomes difficult to grasp. This is a deliberate strategy.

 

[Warrenton]

Conditional ownership presumes the state owns all and we are allowed to use/occupy it as long as we pay the state for the “privilege” and the state does not have others willing to pay more.

I am not saying I agree with the statists - but that statists think that way.

Just a clarification.

 

[Cho]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

It seems our opinion is not very different. The differences seem to arise from talking about different things. I gave a definition of something i called capitalism:
“capitalism:
Rule of law with basic human rights, wherein the right to own property is not limited by type of property and wherein any interference into property rights is like the interference into any other human right (e.g. life,liberty) is only possible according to laws and such laws are only valid if there is sufficient reason for the interference, which can only arise from the human rights.”

That was replied by tomarin and he said capitalism is by its very nature amoral. I cannot see the amorality in that definition (while i can see on in communism just from definition!!), so i assumed he meant something about how people act under those rules, which could be immoral. There the tree reply came.

I can mostly agree, but nopte tha point, that nearly all your criticism include criticism about how the state acts and interfers too much with its subject rights.

Looking at my definition this means, that the states fails to only interefere when there is sufficient reason. So it does not fit what i understand under capitalism. I would call the current systems semi-capitalistic or semi-socialistic differing from state to state. A half-capitalistic system where the state interfers in individual rights without even trying to find sufficient reason but just because it fits the needs of the congress members or other politicians, is rotten at the core.

Therefore i think the way to a more moral state would be cutting back the state both financially and in terms of laws. What i do not like about distributionism is that it would not cut the current state back but would try to heal its flaws by even more state interference. If the initial situation (my above definition) would be moral and that moral situation is lost because the state fails to restrain itself, it looks questionable to solve that error by even more state.

Of course if that ideal of a state, which only interfers in few and limited and necessary ways, is simply impossible because states cannot do that, then distributionism might be the lesser evil. But since there was in practially no country in the world in the last 20 years any succesful attempt to cut the state back (in spite of all neoliberal talk, it was all empty governement spending and number and scop of laws increased all the time), i do not think there is evidence it cannot work. I think its lack of will, because the fear of capitalism is so rooted in everyones mind. The funny thing is, people are afraid of something that they never knew or saw, because capitalism was buried at latest in the 1960s beginning late 19th century.

A moral state is an oxymoron. The state is by definition raw force wielded by one group of people against another. It is “living by the sword”. It is an attempt to avoid responsibility, God given rights and responsibilities for choices in life and an attempt by those who do not believe in a supernatural deity to fill that void in them by creating gods in the material world and justifying it by Marxist and Darwinist dogma.

 

[St_Francis]

In answer to some of the questions which have been raised, or comments made:

1. Distributism is not socialistic, because income-producing property is diffused into the hands of many people, not concentrated in the hands of the state. It is close to the opposite of socialism.
2. Any human system requires some governance; it is Catholic teaching that government is necessary.
3. Now, I do not think that distributists have a clear idea or consensus on how to get from “here” to “there,” but my own personal idea is that large companies would be sold off just as was AT&T. Stockholders would be repaid; there would be no “stealing,” per se.
4. The problem with our current system is, I believe, a part of the system. The way I see it is that unchecked capitalism leads directly to what we have now. I just don’t see any way around that, so I can’t conceive of a remedy for our current problems. I think government will always get involved, and that businesses with always collude with that involvement in a non-distributive system.
5. Catholic teaching is that government is necessary in concert with our human nature. We will have government, but what kind will we have? The current situation of huge, overbearing, central (federal in the US, EU bureaucracy in Europe) government comes about in part because we have no coherent mediating structures to strengthen local government.

A great deal of our problems today are due to the goverment’s having taken over functions from mediating institutions, most often the Church, a process which began in during the Protestant Revolt. The Church provided the “social safety net,” medical care, education… all of these institutions were plundered by the Protestants, who were later forced to renew them under their own control.

1. By including mediating structures such as guilds, there will be less need for government, because the various types of business will regulate themselves more, and there will be more transperancy. Certain tasks currently performed by the government, such as inspections, mediations, etc, will be done by the guilds. Rather than doing the regulating, the government will enforce what would be a series of contracts or agreements when necessary.

 

[Jonatello]

In answer to some of the questions which have been raised, or comments made:

1. Distributism is not socialistic, because income-producing property is diffused into the hands of many people, not concentrated in the hands of the state. It is close to the opposite of socialism.

bingo

1. Any human system requires some governance; it is Catholic teaching that government is necessary.

thank you. its all about who’s in control of government. a government in a distributist-inspired society would be much more responsive to the average citizen than a government in a power-centralizing ultra-capitalist society.

1. Now, I do not think that distributists have a clear idea or consensus on how to get from “here” to “there,” but my own personal idea is that large companies would be sold off just as was AT&T. Stockholders would be repaid; there would be no “stealing,” per se.

right and agreed. I believe those who call distributism an “ends” theory rather than a “means” theory are not totally off in their assessment. It defines a more ideal situation for us to shoot toward. Achieving a more distributist-inspired society would likely require different steps for different societies. But the “ends” of distributism serve as a “means” for addressing other challenges society faces.

I think Distributism says “if we can find a path to the alphabet, we’ll be able to have A-Z.”

1. The problem with our current system is, I believe, a part of the system. The way I see it is that unchecked capitalism leads directly to what we have now.

yep.

I just don’t see any way around that, so I can’t conceive of a remedy for our current problems. I think government will always get involved, and that businesses will always collude with that involvement in a non-distributive system.

and when people no longer are in control of their civic and governing vessels, they are left with no choice but to assemble in public, make a stink and address the real owners of government.

1. Catholic teaching is that government is necessary in concert with our human nature.

not only is it necessary, its unavoidable. and its all based on power. left unchecked, power naturally concentrates into fewer, more powerful hands.

We will have government, but what kind will we have?

exactly. don’t reject government. share government.

The current situation of huge, overbearing, central (federal in the US, EU bureaucracy in Europe) government comes about in part because we have no coherent mediating structures to strengthen local government.

wow you are singing my song…and there are several factors why the local levels of civic life have been decimated.

A great deal of our problems today are due to the goverment’s having taken over functions from mediating institutions, most often the Church, a process which began in during the Protestant Revolt. The Church provided the “social safety net,” medical care, education… all of these institutions were plundered by the Protestants, who were later forced to renew them under their own control.

but still is it really a good thing to have one single, central non-democratic entity in charge of everyone’s social safety net? isn’t that a recipe for tyranny in its own right? I’m Catholic but i feel like we have to acknowledge the corruption it was once prone to and the fear of persecution (or worse) that caused non-Catholics in southern Europe to flee to places like Scotland.

1. By including mediating structures such as guilds, there will be less need for government, because the various types of business will regulate themselves more, and there will be more transperancy. Certain tasks currently performed by the government, such as inspections, mediations, etc, will be done by the guilds. Rather than doing the regulating, the government will enforce what would be a series of contracts or agreements when necessary.

Ah guilds: this is one aspect of distributism that I admit I’m rough on. I need more understanding of how they’d work. One obvious question (which I’m sure is a dumb one) is how does a society filled with guilds avoid collusion, price gauging, etc? Such a question is probably just because I don’t properly understand the nature of guilds. I love the idea of apprenticeships though.

 

[centurionguard]

We need to give more power to large corporations, not limit it. It’s large corporations that know how to produce efficiently. We need them more than they need us. Based on these observations, distributism is indeed unworkable.

We need to give more power to large corporations, not limit it. It’s large corporations that know how to produce efficiently.

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw what you wrote.

Are you saying we should hand over more power to groups like the the Bilderbergers and huge Multinationals?

Looking at the Global War Machine verses the Global Poor and Extreme Poor at that; the Global War Machine spends over 30 Billion almost every 8 days. Some world economist say it would take 30 Billion annually just to keep some of the Global Poor barely above the Poverty line.

I did however; look at an dreamy Optimistic site that said the world should defeat Global Poverty in 20 years. Really?

World Peace Is Coming
worldpeaceiscoming.com/

Eradicating Poverty is an Illusion. Jesus prophesied You Will Always Have The Poor In Your Mist.

 

[David_Castlen]

A moral state is an oxymoron. The state is by definition raw force wielded by one group of people against another. It is “living by the sword”. It is an attempt to avoid responsibility, God given rights and responsibilities for choices in life and an attempt by those who do not believe in a supernatural deity to fill that void in them by creating gods in the material world and justifying it by Marxist and Darwinist dogma.

Cho, will you respond per point to post number 75?, Please

 

[Jonatello]

Eradicating Poverty is an Illusion. Jesus prophesied You Will Always Have The Poor In Your Mist.

doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. we’re also told that we’ll always be sinners in this life. doesn’t mean we stop trying to remove sin from our lives.

we have the capacity to eradicate poverty. just as we have the capability to obey our conscience and avoid doing things we know to be sinful.

we should try.

shoot for the stars, land on the moon right?

also, maybe its possible we’re crossing 2 different definitions of poverty:

• humble neediness that is cared for
  vs
• desperate scarcity that is left unaddressed

 

[St_Francis]

… and when people no longer are in control of their civic and governing vessels, they are left with no choice but to assemble in public, make a stink and address the real owners of government.

I’m not exactly sure what you are talking about here: politics aside: Tea Party or OWS?

… but still is it really a good thing to have one single, central non-democratic entity in charge of everyone’s social safety net? isn’t that a recipe for tyranny in its own right?

When the Church was providing all this aid, it was in a very decentralized system, very much in line with subsidiarity. Holy people would see a need and think of a way to help, they would get permission from the local bishop or from Rome, and then set up a fairly independent situation: a monastery, a monastic order, or similar. Rome was not really involved in the day-to-day running of things.

I’m Catholic but i feel like we have to acknowledge the corruption it was once prone to and the fear of persecution (or worse) that caused non-Catholics in southern Europe to flee to places like Scotland.

I think there was a lot more going on then than you realize, bt probably a bit far afield from our topic. I think that while distributist princilples are rooted in Catholic thought, that they work because the Catholic understanding of human nature is correct. Thus, distributism would work for all; you don’t have to be Catholic for it to work.

Ah guilds: this is one aspect of distributism that I admit I’m rough on. I need more understanding of how they’d work. One obvious question (which I’m sure is a dumb one) is how does a society filled with guilds avoid collusion, price gauging, etc? Such a question is probably just because I don’t properly understand the nature of guilds. I love the idea of apprenticeships though.

This is kind of a big subject; I will see if I can find something about it for you.