Is Distributism utopian?

[David_Castlen]

Who exactly is going to enforce “distributism”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

****Monte, I have asked this a 100 times (hyperbole) to the Distributist on this sight and I get no answer except things like Distributism is an idea or they hint at tax “incentives”. I would love to see how they propose to implement this. Only gods could do it fairly and only angles need participate. Their heart seems to be in keeping production in the hands of many even if the product ends up costing a 1000X more, and keeping those horrible rich at bay. ** **

 

[Abu]

St Francis
Why would a Christian put profit so much in the forefront, as the “most important function” of his business?

No wonder distributism is so little regarded as worthwhile on a national basis when profit as the most important function is so misunderstood by supporters.

Fr Anthony G Percy describes Fr Sirico’s comments on risk in entrepreneurship as “very helpful”. (Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Lexington Books, 2010, p 25).

Fr Robert Sirico puts it succinctly:
**The Entrepreneurial Vocation
by Rev. Robert A. Sirico **
“For some reason, moral critics often focus on the personal gains of entrepreneurs–as if wealth itself is somehow unjust–but lose sight of the many personal risks shouldered by these individuals. Long before entrepreneurs see a return on their idea or investment, they must surrender their time and property to an unknown fate. They pay out wages even before they know whether their forecast has been accurate. They have no assurance of profit. When investments do return a profit, much of it is usually reinvested (though some of it goes to charities and religious institutions). Sometimes entrepreneurs make errors of judgment and miscalculations, and the business suffers financial loss. The nature of the vocation is such that entrepreneurs themselves must accept the responsibility for their losses without shifting the burden onto the public. For the person with a true vocation to be an economic agent of change, he or she must remain vigilant, for economic conditions are ever changing.

“Religious professionals should wonder, when economic risk proves to have been a mistake, whether it is not better to encourage than to condemn. Or, should economic losses suffered by capitalists be viewed as their just deserts? Why not make such occasions opportunities to extend sympathy or pastoral care instead? Whether they win or lose, by putting themselves and their property on the line, entrepreneurs make the future a little more secure for the rest of us.”
See: Journal Of Markets&Morality, Spring 2000
acton.org/publications/mandm/mandm_article_110.php

“In Matthew 25:14-30, we find Jesus’ Parable of the Talents. As with all parables, its meaning is multi-layered. Its eternal meaning relates to how we use God’s gift of grace. With regard to the material world, it is a story about capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the proper use of economic resources. It is a direct rebuttal to those who insist that business success and Christian living are contradictory.”

 

[St_Francis]

First of all, you are now talking about something other than focusing on maximizing profit, “getting every nickel” of profit out. I was addressing that. Now you are talking about something else.

*Why shouldn’t he, if he was doing more than (just) what God ask; but more?

God wants us to be holy. Anything we do in the economic sphere should be subordinate to growth in holiness and to fulfilling the duties of our state of life. In short, God wants us to do more than just to be economic units, altho He has given us work to do and for those to whom He grants material success, He expects a passing-on of the goods in their various forms.

What if by maximizing profits

The man who is focused on maximizing profit will hire people only when he needs *them, not vice versa, and if their employment interferes with his maximizing profits, he will fire or lay them off.

he was giving people who could never work jobs,

why were these poor people unable to work?

the poor much more in contributions, the church a greater gift

Why would the person who is focused on maximizing profit give money to the poor or the Church?

and he was getting closer to his children who work with him day and night? *

And how is the person who is focused on maximizing profit, on getting every nickel of profit out of the business, actually getting closer to his children except by teaching them the same?

So is this some sort of bizarre conflation that you are running on me, or do you really seriously have no clue as to the impression given by your wording?

The reality is that we do what is given to us to do, and God grants us what He grants us. Bill Gates dropped out of school to start a computer company and ended up one of the richest men in the world. But for every Bill Gates, there are dozens, maybe hundreds, whose businesses did not take off, who even went broke, and it was not for lack of effort or virtue or even wisdom on their parts.*

But we each have to do the right thing. If Sam has a business and leads and holy and balanced life and does his best with it, it will either take off or not take off. But if it doesn’t, it wasn’t necessarily because he was lazy and if it does take off, it is probably not because he was trying to squeeze every nickel out of it once it was a going concern.

 

[David_Castlen]

No wonder distributism is so little regarded as worthwhile on a national basis when profit as the most important function is so misunderstood by supporters.

Fr Anthony G Percy describes Fr Sirico’s comments on risk in entrepreneurship as “very helpful”. (Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Lexington Books, 2010, p 25).

Fr Robert Sirico puts it succinctly:
**The Entrepreneurial Vocation
by Rev. Robert A. Sirico **
“For some reason, moral critics often focus on the personal gains of entrepreneurs–as if wealth itself is somehow unjust–but lose sight of the many personal risks shouldered by these individuals. Long before entrepreneurs see a return on their idea or investment, they must surrender their time and property to an unknown fate. They pay out wages even before they know whether their forecast has been accurate. They have no assurance of profit. When investments do return a profit, much of it is usually reinvested (though some of it goes to charities and religious institutions). Sometimes entrepreneurs make errors of judgment and miscalculations, and the business suffers financial loss. The nature of the vocation is such that entrepreneurs themselves must accept the responsibility for their losses without shifting the burden onto the public. For the person with a true vocation to be an economic agent of change, he or she must remain vigilant, for economic conditions are ever changing.

“Religious professionals should wonder, when economic risk proves to have been a mistake, whether it is not better to encourage than to condemn. Or, should economic losses suffered by capitalists be viewed as their just deserts? Why not make such occasions opportunities to extend sympathy or pastoral care instead? Whether they win or lose, by putting themselves and their property on the line, entrepreneurs make the future a little more secure for the rest of us.”
See: Journal Of Markets&Morality, Spring 2000
acton.org/publications/mandm/mandm_article_110.php

“In Matthew 25:14-30, we find Jesus’ Parable of the Talents. As with all parables, its meaning is multi-layered. Its eternal meaning relates to how we use God’s gift of grace. With regard to the material world, it is a story about capital, investment, entrepreneurship, and the proper use of economic resources. It is a direct rebuttal to those who insist that business success and Christian living are contradictory.”

I have read all the series from the Acton Institute regarding economics and the Church. Faith and Liberty was one of my best but odly enough Michlen’s (the tire magnet) interview has been the most memorable. What a great Catholic. If there ever was an example of a wealthy man maximizing profits that was a great Catholic it was Michlen. Did you read it.? Piedra’s “Natural Law” - another good one.

 

[St_Francis]

Who exactly is going to enforce “distributism”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

****Monte, I have asked this a 100 times (hyperbole) to the Distributist on this sight and I get no answer except things like Distributism is an idea or they hint at tax “incentives”. *I would love to see how they propose to implement this. *Only gods could do it fairly and only angles need participate. *Their heart seems to be in keeping production in the hands of many even if the product ends up costing a 1000X more, *and keeping those horrible rich at bay. ****

No wonder distributism is so little regarded as worthwhile on a national basis when profit as the most important function is so misunderstood by supporters. *

Fr Anthony G Percy describes Fr Sirico’s comments on risk in entrepreneurship as “very helpful”. (*Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, *Lexington Books, 2010, p 25).

I repeatedly said that I was talking about, to put it in David’s words, “focusing on maximizing profit,” or “getting every nickel of profit out.”*

The Popes have said that getting every nickel out is not the purpose of business or of our lives. The purpise of business is to *serve humanity, *not have have humanity serve it.

And that is the problem with the current situation. You can define everything bad about our current situation as due to government intervention but the fact of the matter is that without government intervention most of the capitalistic growth *could not have taken place. *How did the railroad giants make their money? And without the government *protecting *capitalists and allowing the gambling parlor known as the stock market, and the legal persons known as corporations and the legal protections afforded to corporations, capitalism as Fr Sirocco extolls it would not exist.

Without the government limiting entry into markets, without the government putting very expensive barriers into starting a business, maybe your businesses would not be so big. Maybe national grocery chains would not be so big if they didn’t drive others out of business by selling at a loss and then jacking up the prices when they were the only game in town. Maybe The major auto companies would not gave become too big to fail if it hadn’t eaten up one-third of the other auto companies around by using *other people’s money. *Maybe certain entertainment companies would not be as big as they are if they hadn’t gotten the *government interventions *of extending copyright to multiple generations.

Wow, you ask about maximizing profit and who’s going to enforce distributism without even understanding the fantasy that Fr Sirrocco, Lew Rockwell, and their ilk are feeding you.

I am sure that you each as individuals are very nice and holy people, great family men, but I do think that you are not seeing clearly in this area when you talk the way you do.

The point of distributism is not to take us all back to the Middle Ages, but to allow more people to have a shot at what you all consider to be a great good, which is owning a business, being an entrepreneur, having the same chance to hire people who would otherwise have no work, give more money to the poor and to the Church.*

You know that Texas chamged its laws so that now someone can sell food made in the home through stores? Do you see that this is a good thing which will allow a family to start a small business on a small scale without having to start at such a high level because they have to have a commercial kitchen? ***THIS is distributism!!! **And it didn’t need additional “enforcement,” it needed government to get out of the way, the same way you guys are always going on about doing!

 

[frankpearson]

But the government still thinks consumption is the answer to it, and wants to discourage wealth even more. Those who are in a position to create both wealth and income for others are mightily discouraged from doing it because the current government is hostile to small business.

I agree entirely. As you know, distributism is an ideal that most would like our economy to approach. Most people believe our markets should have a great number of individuals involved in ownership and competing. I can understand how some would be opposed to the absolute state of distributism in which all capital and land ownership accompanied the laborer, but the concept that we should approach that condition, somehow, at least that we should move more towards widespread ownership has very wide support.

Then one has to ask oneself: Is this the intention? Are Obama and the left really as stupid as they might seem, or are they intent on “leveling” us all into a lumpenproletariat forever dependent on ever smaller government benefits, due to ideology or a sense of innate superiority and vain wish to govern forever? I realize many think they are stupid. I do not share that judgment.

Belloc argues as much. This is really the premise of “The Servile State”, probably the most fundamental distributist work. He argues, however, that capitalism (Laissez Faire) and socialism are unconsciously returning us to the servile state. The unrestrained capitalist squeezes the laboring class from two sides,

(1) his natural advantage in the market, described by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, Book 1, chapter 8,

(2) his capturing of the government.

…until destitution causes the proletariat to exert a response. The power of the capitalist and the Fabian socialist who works with the capitalist agrees to all of those reforms that ensure the capitalist will not be dispossessed. What is left over is a capitalist in more power of the political arm and a market that is less and less free. Belloc sees us returning to slavery, one in which the nomenclature will have masked the reality, but a real slavery. And not with a bang, but with a whimper.

 

[St_Francis]

**I have read all the series from the Acton Institute regarding economics and the Church. *Faith and Liberty was one of my best but odly enough Michlen’s (the tire magnet) interview has been the most memorable. *What a great Catholic. *If there ever was an example of a wealthy man maximizing profits that was a great Catholic it was Michlen. Did you read it.? Piedra’s “Natural Law” - another good one.

Michelin may have “maximized profit,” but that is not what he focused on. From one of the articles at the Acton Institute we see this exhange:

Michelin: …In effect, the ruling question is, “Does the shoe fit the customer’s foot?” The question is not, “Can we fit the customer’s foot to the shoe?..

R&L: So the real character of capitalism is service.

Michelin: Yes.

 

[frankpearson]

You know that Texas chamged its laws so that now someone can sell food made in the home through stores? Do you see that this is a good thing which will allow a family to start a small business on a small scale without having to start at such a high level because they have to have a commercial kitchen? ***THIS is distributism!!! **And it didn’t need additional “enforcement,” it needed government to get out of the way, the same way you guys are always going on about doing!

That is awesome! Bravo Texas. I will have to look into that. Thanks for the update.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #423
the fact of the matter is that without government intervention most of the capitalistic growth could not have taken place.

The-head-in-the-sand ostrich mentality here is characteristic.

As Dr Woods et al show, it is precisely government (political) finagling over the last 80 years that has resulted in failed stimuli, with the Federal Reserve’s mismanagement of the nation’s money and banking systems and deficits.

The purpise of business is to serve humanity, not have have humanity serve it.

Since free enterprise is based on providing goods and services that people want at prices they are prepared to pay, in a competitive economy, within reasonable laws in a democracy, it is work with others and for others – foreseeing the needs of others and satisfying these needs through engaging the factors of production.
Centesimus Annus (#31) affirms the orientation of entrepreneurial work to the needs of others. (Fr Percy, Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Lexington Books, 2010 p 162).

the fantasy that Fr Sirrocco, Lew Rockwell, and their ilk are feeding you

.
Denigrating Fr Sirico and the other doyens of free enterprise shows the fantasy world that some inhabit.

 

[St_Francis]

The-head-in-the-sand ostrich mentality here is characteristic.

Characteristic of what? I listed several examples of government intervention which helps large corporations.

[quoye]As Dr Woods et al show, it is precisely government (political) finagling over the last 80 years that has resulted in failed stimuli, with the Federal Reserve’s mismanagement of the nation’s money and banking systems and deficits.
And I agree that in certain areas government intervention has been inimical to business and to taxpayers.

Since free enterprise is based on providing goods and services that people want at prices they are prepared to pay, in a competitive economy, within reasonable laws in a democracy, it is work with others and for others – foreseeing the needs of others and satisfying these needs through engaging the factors of production.
Centesimus Annus (#31) affirms the orientation of entrepreneurial work to the needs of others. (Fr Percy, Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Lexington Books, 2010 p 162).

Oh, is Centesimus Annus the document in which Pope John Paul II expressed that “increasing internationalization of the economy ought to be accompanied by *effective international agencies *which will oversee and direct the economy to the common good,…”?

Why do you think these “reasonable laws” are needed?

Denigrating Fr Sirico and the other doyens of free enterprise shows the fantasy world that some inhabit.

The sort of laissez-sfaire capitalism promoted by Fr Sirocco, et al, does not currently exist, and has not existed since the Industrial Revolution. Oddly enough, what existed back them looked a lot more like Distributism than does what laissez-faire capitalism has brought us to.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I don’t know where you all are “coming from”, but profit is nothing more than the arithmetic difference between sales revenue and costs.

That’s all it is.

In a free and open competitive marketplace, profits are automatically limited by competition. If profits are high, then the market place will be flooded with competitors who will lower their prices and drive profits down in an effort to buy an increased volume of sales.

I do not see how a basic concept … subtracting costs from sales revenues … can be turned into a sociological and philosophical evil.

The idea of maximizing profits or attempting to maximize your profits is needed to offset unanticipated expenses, which happen all the time. If you do not maximize your profits, then when an unanticipated cost comes along, then you will not have a cushion of cash available to pay those unanticipated costs.

And you won’t know whether your profits are high or low, until the end of your market cycle.

It might be the year ending in January if you are a retailer.

Different businesses use different fiscal years.

And the cycle might well be several years long, if for example, it takes two or three years to make a sale, for example.

And new products may take several years to bring to market. Boeing, for example, got killed with high unanticipated costs in developing their new 787 airliner. Without high profits in other lines of business, Boeing could easily have gone under. At the same time, Boeing could not raise prices in their other lines of business too much because other airplane companies had competing products and would be more than happy to undercut Boeing’s prices and take those sales away from Boeing.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know where you all are “coming from”, but profit is nothing more than the arithmetic difference between sales revenue and costs.

That’s all it is.

In a free and open competitive marketplace, profits are automatically limited by competition. If profits are high, then the market place will be flooded with competitors who will lower their prices and drive profits down in an effort to buy an increased volume of sales.

I do not see how a basic concept … subtracting costs from sales revenues … can be turned into a sociological and philosophical evil.

The idea of maximizing profits or attempting to maximize your profits is needed to offset unanticipated expenses, which happen all the time. If you do not maximize your profits, then when an unanticipated cost comes along, then you will not have a cushion of cash available to pay those unanticipated costs.

And you won’t know whether your profits are high or low, until the end of your market cycle.

It might be the year ending in January if you are a retailer.

Different businesses use different fiscal years.

And the cycle might well be several years long, if for example, it takes two or three years to make a sale, for example.

And new products may take several years to bring to market. Boeing, for example, got killed with high unanticipated costs in developing their new 787 airliner. Without high profits in other lines of business, Boeing could easily have gone under. At the same time, Boeing could not raise prices in their other lines of business too much because other airplane companies had competing products and would be more than happy to undercut Boeing’s prices and take those sales away from Boeing.

Are you addressing this comment to me? Because if you had read my posts on the subject, I said several times that I had no objection to profit. David was talking about “focusing on maximizing profit,” which he later described as “getting every nickel out,” and that I was against.

 

[Abu]

St Francis #428
The sort of laissez-sfaire capitalism promoted by Fr Sirocco, et al, does not currently exist, and has not existed since the Industrial Revolution. Oddly enough, what existed back them looked a lot more like Distributism than does what laissez-faire capitalism has brought us to.

The confusion and thus misrepresentation is never-ending.

Thus the poster feels that “laissez-faire capitalism promoted by Fr Sirico et al does not currently exist, and has not existed since the Industrial Revolution”
Yet he feels that what has never existed since the 18th century, is “what laissez-faire capitalism has brought us to.”

It’s quite obvious that he is living in a dream world and is unable to see the wood for the trees. Why the obsession?
Where is the reference to and quote for “laissez-faire capitalism” by Fr Sirico or by the Popes? What he tilts at has never existed in any society or country, only in the minds of a few economists; he is thus unable to point to any unregulated laissez-faire market.

While Bl John Paul II dislikes the Marxist term “capitalism”, the Holy Father prefers a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.

However, Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

 

[David_Castlen]

The confusion and thus misrepresentation is never-ending.

Thus the poster feels that “laissez-faire capitalism promoted by Fr Sirico et al does not currently exist, and has not existed since the Industrial Revolution”
Yet he feels that what has never existed since the 18th century, is “what laissez-faire capitalism has brought us to.”

It’s quite obvious that he is living in a dream world and is unable to see the wood for the trees. Why the obsession?
Where is the reference to and quote for “laissez-faire capitalism” by Fr Sirico or by the Popes? What he tilts at has never existed in any society or country, only in the minds of a few economists; he is thus unable to point to any unregulated laissez-faire market.

While Bl John Paul II dislikes the Marxist term “capitalism”, the Holy Father prefers a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.

However, Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change,

1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

I note Mr St. Francis believes:

1. For a person that has maximized profits to be a good father is not possible
2. That large companies are inherently bad
3. That though a large organizatioin can offer a product at a lessor prices it should not be
4. That though some large organizations can create more jobs ithey should not exist
5. That though a successful businessman maximizes profits while doing God’s work it can not be so
   And I could go on. I believe he represents a core of society that has an inherent envy to those who are successful. It is hard, even for me, to observe those who succeed although I have worked my tail off. It is life. Life is not fair; the only place where you will find fair and justice is with God.

Never the less, I wave the white flag; do not throw your pearls to swine.

 

[frankpearson]

Are you addressing this comment to me? Because if you had read my posts on the subject, I said several times that I had no objection to profit. David was talking about “focusing on maximizing profit,” which he later described as “getting every nickel out,” and that I was against.

I recorded audio of the full text of Rerum Novarum, on “Rights and Duties of Property and Labor”.

I don’t think this conversation on where the Catholic should stand on merely maximizing profits needs to be held.

“But wealthy owners and masters of labor should be mindful of this, that to exercise pressure on the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain and to gather one’s profits out of the needs of another is condemned by all laws, human and divine.”

“Lastly the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workman’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealings… because the laboring man is, as a rule weak and unprotected and because his slender means in proportion to their scantiness should be accounted sacred.”

 

[Abu]

The problem with which St Francis is embroiled is that of maximizing profit – a good thing in itself – but not to the exclusion of justice or through other vices such as cheating on quality or by other shoddy means.

 

[David_Castlen]

The problem with which St Francis is embroiled is that of maximizing profit – a good thing in itself – but not to the exclusion of justice or through other vices such as cheating on quality or by other shoddy means.

**And I know I made that clear in my examples of companies maximizing profits and not violating God’s will and infact doing acts of mercy.

I would guess you are not opposed to one maximizing profits if it results in lower cost to the public, more jobs, better living conditions, while the owner treats his employees with justice, and has a good family life. I know many businesses that have fit this picture.**

I think one of the ways to increase the atmosphere for a Christian society is a free market on a gold (metal) standard… this maybe off subject

 

[Abu]

No, David, I’m not against maximizing profits, which could mean better conditions for all engaged in meeting the needs of others for legitimate and ethical goods or services.

 

[St_Francis]

I note Mr St. Francis believes:

1. *For a person that has maximized profits to be a good father is not possible

I repeatedly quoted *your words, which were “focus on maximizing profit,” and “getting every nickel out of the business.”

To focus is to make something the center of attention or resources. To maximize is to make as big as possible.

Now, you did not offer any explanation that maybe you weren’t talking about putting all your attention and resources on making the profit be as large as possible except for those few slivers which went to “fill one’s obligations” to God and family, so I had to go with what you were saying.

You didn’t offer any arguments in favor of this concentration of resources except to say that doing so leads to a wonderful spread of material resources all over the world with no further explantion.

And now you are using different words to make me look foolish.

1. *That large companies are inherently bad

And this is not what I said. I said that the corporate stock-holding organization was a bad thing. And I explained why I thought that.

1. *That though a large organizatioin can offer a product at a lessor prices it should not be

And I do not think that just because toys painted with lead paint are cheaper that they should be offered, either.

I think that the problems with stock-held corporations outweigh the potential reductions in price, esp. considering, as I mentioned before, that there is a lot of departmentalizing and subcontracting going on anyway.

1. *That though some large organizations can create more jobs ithey should not exist

I have mentioned Mondragon cooperative as an counter to this more than once, so I do not understand why you insist on repeating this.

1. *That though a successful businessman maximizes profits while doing God’s work it can not be so

Refer to reply to #1 above.

And I could go on.

Yes, it is easy to go on misquoting people’s words and assuming their beliefs…

*I believe he represents a core of society that has an inherent envy to those who are successful. *It is hard, even for me, to observe those who succeed although I have worked my tail off.

I am sorry you have a problem with envy, please don’t project it onto me.

Your assumptions allow you to dismiss my ideas without truly considering what I am saying. I come to these ideas because I have had a lot of varied experiences, some of which have not been experienced by many people in my generation, along with observation and reading. While we measure the states of various societies and see improvement, the measurments we use relate to material possessions and not to overall social health. During the decades the USA was lauded as the freest, happiest, most developed nation in the world, we were experiencing great increases is teen suicide, abortion and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, debt, divorce, etc. Seems like we traded our inheritance for a mess of pottage, no?

So, in a third world nation, a woman may now be able to make 10 times what she used to make, but at what price? She is not with her children, much of what she makes has to go towards upgrades in her lifestyle like cell phones and work clothes that do not really enhance her life.

And the ultimate condemnation of the rapid material "improvements is that after 30 or 50 years of this enhanced lifestyle, few remain in their churches.*

What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but loses his soul?

*It is life. *Life is not fair; the only place where you will find fair and justice is with God.

And I never said anything about that, did I? Instead, I cited instances of businesses lobbying to create legal barriers to the entry of competitors–nothing to do with God.

Never the less, I wave the white flag; do not throw your pearls to swine.

Oh, were those pearls? There were so few instances of substance that I couldn’t tell.

 

[galahad9000]

Anyone interested in Distributism should check out John Medaille’s books on this subject. Medaille’s writings are the best explanation of Distributism since Chesterton and Belloc. His books are readily available and I was able to get his most recent one (“Toward a Truly Free Market”). I discussed this book a priest and he was already familiar with it. According to him this is the only system which combines justice for the poor with freedom to prosper. That prosperity need not be at the expense of others seems to be lost on both liberals and conservatives in the west. It is clear that Distributism is not utopian but actually practical. All it lacks is a political organization to make it a reality.