Addressing your Local Community: An interview with Chattanooga Civics

by David W. Cooney

One thing that distributists are often asked is how we can begin to move toward a more distributist society. What are things that we can do now, in our current political and economic environment, to at least nudge society in what we consider to be a better direction. A lot of our response has been about how to do this economically; like supporting local businesses and using a credit union rather than a bank. That is good as far as it goes, but we must also address these questions politically. What steps can we take to help society as a whole to become more localist, to encourage our local government to address local issues and hold them accountable for doing so, and to encourage people in our local community to be engaged in the local political government and its activities?

Distributism and "Preppers"

Distributists emphasize personal and local economic independence as the foundation of personal, political, and economic freedom. For nearly one hundred years, we have been saying that society overall needs to move away from our dependence, not only dependence on big government, but also on big business. As long as we continue to accept these things, we will be in a state of dependence, which means that we will not truly be free. So, what does this have to do with the so-called “prepper” movement that has gained popularity in the last two years? 

Distributism at the Catholic Economics Roundtable

The following opening statement was given at the “Catholic Economics Roundtable” livestream hosted by Michael Lofton on 23 January 2021. It can be viewed on the Reason and Theology YouTube channel[1] and is available as a podcast on The Tradistae Podcast on Podbean.[2]
 

Subsidiarity, COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates, and Testing Mandates

I would like to apologize for the delay in getting articles posted lately. There have been several factors for this. One of those will be the topic of this post. This article will consist of a series of letters between my employer and myself regarding a vaccine mandate issued by the governor of my state and my request to get a religious exemption and accommodation. I have redacted or initialized names for privacy, and removed any contact information, but the letters are otherwise as they occurred, including typos. How does this apply to distributism? It applies to the question of subsidiarity and the extent to which state (and federal) government can dictate medical procedures on individuals. 

I realize that this is a very contentious topic, especially these days, but it is an important one as many states in the US and many countries around the world are implementing restrictive policies that very few would have dreamed were possible in February of 2020. Many are saying we are rushing headlong into totalitarianism. I think we are already there.

 

I would also like to state that nothing in the following is intended to be a judgment against anyone who chose to get the vaccine, including Catholics who came to different conclusions on these matters than I did.

Where Are We Headed?

 

Western democracies like to consider themselves as the bastion of freedom, especially the United States. Even beyond that, people in Western democracies are taught and believe that Enlightenment Liberalism introduced freedom to society as never before, again, especially in the United States. Ironically, an actual examination of the pre and post revolutionary governments reveals that this was never actually true. As libertarian, John Attarian, points out, "... by every measure, our government is more tyrannical towards Americans than King George's at its worst."[1] From its beginnings, our federal government had more power to trample our freedoms than the English monarchy. As the English parliament gained more direct power over government, it also increased the power it had over the English people. While we have not (yet) gone quite as far as the Soviet Union, China, and other socialist regimes, Western democracies have relentlessly increased their totalitarian powers over their subjects. As we move further away from any form of subsidiarity dispersion of power in our societies, we should ask ourselves where we are headed.

Can We Return to the "Old Normal?"

Now that we have reached the one year point of "two weeks to flatten the curve,"[1] some states in the US are starting to reopen their economies. This is considered to be a great relief for many who have struggled to maintain a living during this time. Even for those whose livelihoods were wiped out, there is a sense of relief that they can finally try to rebuild and restart a "normal" life. Their hope is that they will finally be able to return to how things were before the "lock down" started. For some, this is bringing to the surface a question that others have been asking for several months; can we return to the "old normal?" After such a great and lengthy disruption, can our lives truly get back to the way they were?

 

LOCALISM! My thoughts on a new name.

In December, the Society of Gilbert Keith Chesterton[1] revealed what they propose as the new name for Distributism: Localism. This reveal was made simultaneously in the society's magazine, Gilbert, and on its podcast, Uncommon Sense. Prior to its announcement, the society did reach out to other distributists for reaction and input regarding the proposed name change. Thomas Storck and I wrote reactions that were included in the same issue of Gilbert. Adrian Alquist and I also discussed the topic on a later episode of their Uncommon Sense program, which can be found on YouTube.[2] The problem with doing a live interview is that you can go into it with certain points and statements you intend to make, and then find that the course of the conversation went in a direction where you didn't actually say something you intended. In listening to the interview, I found that this was the case for me. I agree with everything I said, but there was one thing I intended to say, but didn't.

 

On the Foundations of Distributism: Property, Family, Politics, Economy. Part 2

by Thomas Storck

The following is the English version of part two of an article/interview by Thomas Storck, “Sui Fondamenti del Distributismo: Proprietà, Famiglia, Politica, Economia,” published in Bollettino di dottrina sociale della Chiesa, July/Sept. 2020, pp. 73-84.

For information on the Italian publication, see here.

Reflecton on the US Election

In March of 2020, the United States, along with most of the rest of the world, entered a new and dark phase. It was a phase that not only revealed the ideas driving the globalist movement, but the weaknesses in the very fabric of modern societies. It has been a time of even greater division and tension between two different world views struggling for dominance. Another thing that was revealed is that our population is not clearly on one side or the other in this struggle; the split is roughly even. A lot of things happened over the last ten months, and people on both sides will rush to defend the positions and actions of their own side while denouncing and blaming the other side. This article is not going to address those claims because the point of Practical Distributism is to present the ideas of distributism to a world desperately in need of something better than what we currently have, and distributism is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea.[1] Therefore, I would like to address what I think is, from a distributist perspective, one of the greatest lessons of the last ten months, and especially the events related to the US presidential election that just came to a tumultuous end.

 

Distributism Basics: Foundational Principles

I am happy to announce the publication of my new book, Distributism Basics: Foundational Principles. This is an exploration of some of the core principles underlying the distributist idea. 

Reflections on the Quarantine

People all around the world have been in a quarantine lock down due to the Covid-19 virus outbreak for about a month. In some areas, families can go for walks, while in other areas people are only allowed to go outside for things like getting food. This crisis imposed isolation, called "social distancing," is raising certain questions about how our society is structured and what we value.

The Homeless

The issue of the homeless in society is starting to get more attention in the news in the United States. Unfortunately, I suspect that this is only because of the upcoming presidential election. It would be unfair to say that this issue gets no attention at other times, but it does seem to me that the level of attention has increased as a topic of interest for our federal elections. While any public attention to this issue is welcome - it is a real issue that needs to be addressed - it does seem that the form of attention and the ways of addressing it leave a lot to be desired. I think this is true from both a general perspective as well as a specifically distributist one.

An Economics of Justice & Charity

The Church has always concerned itself with issues of justice in society, and popes have taught extensively on the topic since the late 1800s. Unfortunately, many Catholics in our day are not aware of this teaching, or only consider it in regard to things like helping the poor. Helping the poor is a very important aspect of it, but the scope of the Church’s teaching on matters of social justice go much further. Any aspect of social life which involves questions of ethics or morality fall within the scope of this teaching. Thomas Storck’s new book, An Economics of Justice & Charity, is a guide that shows how the Church’s teaching is very clear, has never changed, and definitely applies to areas of social life like economics.

Subsidiarity vs. Single Payer 2

Unfortunately, the circumstances of life prevented me from addressing Jack Quirk's response to my previous article on this topic before now. Given the amount of time, I considered moving on to other topics, but there were several points he claimed that I think really need to be addressed. Therefore, with apologies to our readers, and to Mr. Quirk and his readers, here is the much delayed response.

Subsidiarity vs. Single Payer

In his article, “Subsidiarity and the Single Payer,” Jack Quirk argues that a Single Payer system for health care services is consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and Catholic Social Teaching. He concludes his article by stating that the “principle of subsidiarity cannot legitimately be used to argue against a single-payer healthcare system. … Those who argue against it will need to avail themselves of something outside of Catholic social teaching for support.” His argument seems to depend on two points which I think are incorrect. The first is that the question of subsidiarity “does not turn on jurisdiction, but on competence. Subsidiarity is not federalism.” The second is the fact that some health care services are very expensive, and the fact that health insurers in the United States lack the power to contain those costs, means that the highest level of government has the right and responsibility, according to the principles of subsidiarity, to step in to assist paying for all health care services. This response is an explanation of why I believe he is wrong on both points.

The Process of Subsidiarity

Many critics of distributism claim that what we want to achieve would require the expansion of state power and that we really want an all powerful state. What we actually advocate is the decentralization of government power. We want to distribute the various powers of government as close to the local level as can be practically achieved. This is because we promote the principle known as "subsidiarity." Subsidiarity states that,

"A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view of the common good."                                      - Pope St. John Paul II

That sounds great, but how would it work?

Distributism vs. Globalism

There has been a tendency over the last several decades toward globalism. This goes beyond the so-called "global economy,” with its free trade deals favoring international banks and corporations. This trend has resulted in the formation of international bureaucracies imposing standards, if not laws, on otherwise sovereign states. While there was always some resistance to this tendency, it has nevertheless progressed to the point that there is now a growing movement of outright rejection. What was initially presented as a path toward peace and harmony is increasingly viewed by common citizens as a growing threat to their freedom and way of life. What is the position of distributism in relation to the idea of globalism?

Brexit: One Distributist's Perspective

On Thursday, 23 June, 2016, the people of the United Kingdom voted on whether or not their country would remain a member of the European Union. Those who chose to leave won, 52% to 48%. While they are starting the process of separation from the international governmental structure of the EU and establishing trade agreements and national policies that are currently governed by EU law, I wanted to consider this decision from the perspective of distributism.

Devolution

by David W. Cooney

At the beginning of his term as Prime Minister, David Cameron unveiled a program called the “Big Society.” The idea is to decentralize both legislative and tax authority from the central government and make them more local. Geographically, this plan goes beyond the states of the United Kingdom, and even beyond the county councils. The plan includes moving authority all the way to city leaders. This idea, known as “devolution,” is still on the minds of the English, and there appears to be an ongoing movement to make this idea a political reality. This is certainly an encouraging movement from a distributist perspective, but it faces some serious challenges.

Is Small Government the Worst Government?

According to an exchange between Chris Hayes and Brian Murphy on MSNBC, small government, by which they mean local municipal government, is actually worse than large government. Referencing an article from New York Magazine, they say that local government is worse because it is less accountable to the citizens. Let's examine their reasons for saying so and see if they stand up to scrutiny.