Fads, Focus, Leadership, and Why Democracy Fails

  The Kingdom of Edan uses social media to pass along information to others and as alterantive news sources. Today I was reviewing the ongoing battles in Ukraine between the coup leaders in Kyev and various separatist groups in the east; the impact of vaccine costs on the operations of Médecins Sans Frontières as they fight childhood disease; the work of various bishops to provide aid to the many Christians being slaughtered in Iraq; how ISIL forces are selling young girls into slavery to raise funds; the violent clashes between Boko Haram and African forces; etc. I was also reading a concerning report about the rapid decline in British military power in the last 2 decades and the possible impact this could have on global stability.
  In the midst of this I encountered a tweet (and associated picture) that was stunning in its incongruity. In midst of the greatest outbreak of Ebola in history, unemployment and economic downturn threatening to both expand rapidly, Pakistan (a nuclear power) in political chaos, civil wars in Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic (in addition to everything mentioned above) this tweet and pic proclaimed,

  "No seriously people. Net Neutrality is more important than whatever you're doing right now."

   This discussion is not about net neutrality (although the arguments used in favor of it tend to reveal its proponents don't understand how the contemporary internet actually works) but rather about what some people have sarcastically named first world problems; how trivial issues can take on a large emotional value to people who do not face serious issues. There is a slightly older term for this - the fad.
  It is easy to understand how people become so easily distracted by the trivial. To a wealthy American or Australian unmenaced by war or rebellion, far from plague and famine, in a land never threatened with attack in a generation or more the problems of West Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia seem far away and very, very impersonal. On the other hand the idea that it might take 0.5 - 1.5 more seconds to load your email in the morning is direct and personal.
  Note that while I said it is easily to understand I did not say it is defensible.
  As a result you have many people who are spending a great deal of time and energy influencing politics to make sure that their emails loads as quickly as they like even though their concern is based upon erroneous understanding of the topic at hand and their level of engagement is irrational.
 
  This isn't a surprise. After all it is easy to demonstrate that voters are irrational in their voting and tend to attach emotional weight to trivial topics merely because others have already attached emotional weight to the same topic, a phenomenon called 'herding'.
  But this may not be a bad thing, really - as Prince Jonathan pointed out, expecting every single citizen to be knowledgeable and engaged in all aspects of of government, economics, and foreign policy is a form of cruelty. Others have argued that voters are actually acting rationally when they remain ignorant of politics and 'herd' - to sum up their points, it isn't that voters are irrational but rather that remaining ignorant and voting as others do may be the only rational option for the majority of voters!

  Regardless of the underlying causes of voter behavior, the fact remains that the net neutrality issue is a perfect example of why Democracy is doomed to failure.
 Yes, really.
  Remember, the entire argument underpinning net neutrality is based upon a misapprehension of how the internet actually works. Yet as is shown in the links on this age several prominent politicians are proposing laws to enforce the position of the ignorant/irrational activists. Why would they do this?
  It could be that they are also ignorant of how the internet works. But why not consult some of the many experts they must have access to?

  The actual answer is that it is rational for politicians to make bad laws that appeal to ignorant and/or irrational voters.

  Why? Politicians are, in a very real way, just more voters: they do not have the time and energy to be fully conversant with every element of government, economics, etc. and they are not only likely to 'herd', they also face the tremendous pressures of being members of political parties - they are also forced to herd in many areas! Lastly, the tendency of voters to 'herd' means that politicians that appear to agree with a particular group of irrational voters will be seen in a favorable light by those voters - agreeing with ignorance will earn them more future votes; disagreeing might strip them of power.
  The result is a system where ignorant, irrational politicians maintain or increase their influence and power by enacting bad laws to appeal to ignorant, irrational voters. Or, in short, any modern Democracy in action.

  This is why the Edanian system of Feudal Technocratic Distributism is a critical element of governmental conceptualization; leadership in Edan is focused on avoiding decision making based on ignorance, reducing irrationality in leadership as much as possible and making the self-interests of leaders intimately tied to the long-term prosperity of families and the nation, not voting in short cycles. This concept of an integrated life is essential to Edan and foreign to Democracy.

Alternatives, Consequences, Distributism, and Being King

One of the joys of being king is that we do get to meet with our citizens, if not often enough (and some citizens have yet to meet us in person). These meetings are enjoyable and informative.
  This past weekend we had an opportunity to chat with Earl Hodges and Baron Floyd at some length as well as meet with 10-12 more citizens. During a conversation I heard two citizens speaking when one, obviously unaware we could overhear, said,

"Oh, no. I can't mention that to the king."

Her companion pressed her to speak to us leading the first to say,

   "If he were involved he might have to do something. It is best if I deal with it and take it to the baron if I must."

  We did not press for  details when we spoke to the citizens later.

  We were very gratified by this discussion. The speaker showed no fear or awe of the royal office, she simply did not feel it was appropriate. This is very directly true - her baron has the duty and right to be her first recourse. More critically, she was obviously determined to resolve the issue on her own. This is a core Distributist concept - solve an issue within a family and if you cannot go then to the community, then the most local authority, etc. This is one of the reasons we have pointed out before that Monarchy is inherently Distributist.
  Just as critically, the citizen was aware of a key point - if we felt compelled to act or make a decision, then our decision is final. Remember, here is no one to appeal to once the king has ruled. While not as final, this responsibility adheres to any noble within the Kingdom - any legal or political or leadership decision they make is at least potentially final. While to an elected official in a transient position or even to a bureaucrat far removed from accountability this can seem like a perk of position, to an aristocrat who both holds a position for life and has a personal relationship to the people he leads this imposes a greater burden.

  Because of this we recommend that leaders approach problems with a series of questions:

Who has authority?- this is straightforward - if you do not have authority over a particular event, concern, etc. you cannot directly lead but rather need to defer to proper authority. For example, a baron has no authority to order a parish priest to avoid certain topics in his homilies.

Or else what?- Is the considered action or change better than doing nothing? If it isn't better than doing nothing it might be best to do nothing. While a baron may well have the authority to demand that the commons of his village be managed a certain way, if his citizens are managing it well and to their own satisfaction his intercession may be superfluous or even detrimental.

Compared to what? All actions considered should be compared to other alternatives and the various risks, costs, etc. to make sure the decided action or change is the best one possible. If the baron was considering regulating the use of the village commons because he is concerned local agriculture is too narrowly focused and realizes a single bad season could impoverish his poorest citizens is the best solution regulation? Perhaps agricultural training would be better? Subsidized seeds for alternate crops? Simply storing food against future famine?

And then what?- What are the foreseeable consequences of the various options? If the baron subsidized alternate agriculture will the alternative remain dependent on subsidies to continue?

To what end?- What is the ultimate goal of the change or action? Does the proposed change or action actually lead to that end? If the alternative solutions are susceptible to the same potential disasters as the status quo are they truly viable solutions?

Can this be done by someone closer to the issue?- All problems should be addressed by the closest/lowest-ranking/most proximate authority whenever possible. In the example, the baron should probably begin by simply meeting with the various farmers, explaining his concerns, and asking them to solve the problem for themselves thereby taking on the role of mentor and collaborator to the farmers' growth. If the citizens need assistance or cannot solve the issue alone then the baron's actions will be expected and welcome.

  The last bit of advice we have for leaders is simple - when you decide that you do need to act, act with speed and resolve.

The Great Flaw of Anarchism [by Prince Jonathan]

  Anarchism is, in its most fundamental concepts, entirely correct. The structure and concept of the State, as it is known today, is nothing more than a vast mechanism for tyranny. It takes away freedom, harms the common good, and commits acts of unjustified violence simply by existing; all of which it attempts to justify using elaborate political theories with deeply flawed foundations. Edan is not statist. I am not statist. To be otherwise is to be fooled. All this I believe and admit freely, yet I am still not an Anarchist. Indeed, both I and the Kingdom are very strongly anti-anarchy. And how, you ask, is this possible? Is that not a paradoxical position? Why do we oppose both the State and its absence?
  Because we recognize the great flaw of Anarchism. We see that it has developed from its perfectly rational basic principles into a greater philosophy that is largely false. Anarchists do not just wish to abolish the State, they wish to abolish all political action, all authority, and the entirety of the social sphere except for economics and the family, and some of them even the latter. This is the absolute height of foolishness, and Edan thus rejects Anarchism, as I shall now explain.
  Man is, as a very wise man once observed, a political animal, and this truth cannot be denied. Throughout all the history of all the world, government and political association has developed amongst civilized men. Furthermore, contrary to the common belief of Anarchism, it has largely done so in a non-aggressive way. After the gradual collapse of the Roman Empire, there was no government in France, Italy, Spain, or Western Germany. This meant that the only people with power in those places were the land owners, and the only material order their employment of tenant workers. Over time, these landowners, these counts and dukes, made deals amongst themselves, refined their feudal (that is, contractual) relationship with their tenants, and appointed some of their number as kings. Although violence and coercion were certainly involved in some times and places, the origin of government in Western Europe was accomplished through nothing more than the ownership of property, which I highly doubt any true anarchist will criticize. Similar origins may be found for much of the government of the ancient world, though, again, coercion is not completely absent from history.
  And, once more contrary to the typical beliefs of libertarians and anarchists, Anarchism has also been found throughout history. Far from being the first authentically new political development in three thousand years, absolute individual freedom with no form of government or authority has been seen in many different times and places. We find examples in the Judges period of Israel, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, to name just a few. It is not necessary here to rely solely on those societies incapable of developing government; anarchy has existed in the world through the Age of Exploration. Indeed, considering the nations that evolved in Southern Africa and Polynesia, it could be argued that even the most technologically primitive societies are capable of forming governments, though most of them abstain. What is interesting here is that all examples of anarchy found historically, no matter what their culture, religion, or level of technology, share a few basic traits: continuous, bloody warfare, the normalization of atrocities, and a lack of any meaningful development in technology or art. Every time it as been implemented, anarchy has had a terrifyingly negative impact on the civilizations it affected. Even the most stable and moral examples, such as Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, were plagued by war and violence.
  Now, these facts alone would not be enough to condone statism. The ends do not justify the means; we cannot use tyranny and violence to end tyranny and violence. It is, as the majority of anarchists observe, utterly irrational. However, it is more than possible to form governments and establish the rule of law without recourse to coercion. A state-like order can be created in a completely permissible way, so why should anarchy be permitted to survive? If a truly lawless condition leads to such horrid things, why do we not agree to create law?
  So we see that Anarchism is disproved by history, but it is not even necessary to resort to that approach. Reason can also be used to show its flaws, and to demonstrate that a moral society is neither anarchy nor the State, but rather a proper, feudal government.
  It is natural for people to turn a blind eye to the errors in their own position. That is simple human nature, and it cannot be totally avoided, only fought. Anarchism, however, suffers from a general naïveté in excess even of that. Possible abuses of its systems and flaws in its concept of legality are ignored utterly, or supposedly defeated with the argument that market forces will eventually lead to their destruction. Even the most legitimate concerns are given no thought, as a rule.
  For example, let us say that there is a particular factory that produces car frames, and, in order to cut costs and run more efficiently, they switch from their existing chrome-coating method to one involving a much more volatile compound. The run-off and pollution from this compound quickly spreads off the lot of property that the factory is built upon, and begins to poison the water supply of a neighbouring residential district. The factory owner has harmed the health of many other people, so is he accountable to pay damages and switch back to the older, safer method? How much money should he pay out? How is that determined? Suppose the people in the district hire one security company to force him to pay out a large sum of money to them, but he claims that he owes much less, and hires a rival company to defend himself. Or suppose that he even claims that he isn't responsible at all. What happens next? Who determines which side is right? If the side that is wrong wins, who can step in to fix it?
  As another problem, is airspace property? Can sections of the sky and upper atmosphere be claimed, bought, and sold? It's an interesting question when there is no central law regulating it, but it is not the problem here. The problem is what happens when there is a dispute. If a road-owning company claims that it owns the air above its property up to the limit of the atmosphere, and a air-liner company holds that airspace cannot be owned because it cannot be worked, who wins the dispute over the first company charging tolls on passing planes? Let's say that the air company refuses to pay the demanded tolls, so the road-owners call in a private security company that agrees with their claims to force the matter, and then the air company calls in their own security that agrees with them. If negotiations fail, a shooting war will result. This is something of an extreme example, but it is entirely possible, and does a good job of illustrating this sort of problem. In a state of true anarchy, serious problems arise because of a lack of authority. Does this not mean that, according to the very laws of success and failure that Anarchism itself upholds as its unique practical advantage, authority will inevitably result? Is it not in the common interest of everyone to not just agree on a standard convention for such matters, but also create some way of solving similar difficulties in the future? And since this authority is so intimately linked to defence and enforcement, doesn't it make sense that it, the police, and the military should be a united organization? We find here the genesis of good government, and, indeed, of all government.
   And so we can see that Anarchism is neither foolish nor evil, but the belief that it can survive for more than a few generations without descending into violence and disruption is most certainly the former. Anarchists are correct in observing that the way things are today is critically flawed, but they fail to see the flaws in their own ideas again and again. Ultimately, they are, as a movement, over-idealistic. Even if they do not consciously realize it, their system is completely reliant on the total or almost-total eradication of human stupidity, selfishness, and disputes.
  In Edan, however, we recognize that such a utopian event is impossible. So we reject the State, then reject Anarchism, and finally establish ourselves to be a voluntary government. We seek to create the authority, stability, and public beneficence of a well-run State, while still maintaining the proper morality and rationality at the heart of Anarchism. Though this may be difficult, it is still worth striving after; and it is an ideal that we will not abandon for as long as the Kingdom survives.

The Enemy of my Enemy is Just a Stranger

Edan is dedicated to certain principles and opposed to certain concepts and activities, like any nation or movement. We stand for legitimate justice, responsible freedom, family, faith, and the tenets of Catholic Social Justice as described by the Church itself. We oppose moral relativity, secularism, the disruption of the family, corporatism, Socialism, Libertarianism, usury, and Anarchy. We are dedicated to using faith, reason and example to demonstrate to the world that Distributist practices lead to a more stable, more just, more sustainable society.

It is for these reasons that the King of Edan opposes the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Yes, there are superficial points of agreement between Distributism and the Occupy Wall Street protesters' complaints and goals (when they have made them); OWS appears to oppose usury and does oppose the debt-based system currently used in modern financial markets; OWS members complain about consumerism and the commoditization of certain elements of life; OWS wants to end the level of influence wealth can achieve in the political process; OWS wants to transform the current laissez-faire/Corporate/Crony Capitalism into something more just. On these and some other points OWS seems to agree with Edanian concepts and policy.

But these are only in the realm of complaints. The OWS movement seems to motivated by Socialist and Anarchist goals; Kalle Lasn of Adbusters, the motive force that began OWS, admitted that the reason that the OWS is happening now is that President Obama has not been Socialist enough to satisfy the young voters that won him the election. Many of the local protests, particularly in Los Angeles and Portland are openly controlled by Communist organizations who use pressure tactics and outright violence to control the camps and dialogue. Other camps are controlled by Anarchists and/or well-armed 'security forces' that, again, use fear and violence to control the protests and the speakers.

The '99% Declaration' document does hold many things that are obviously meritorious; the end of cash lobbying, elimination of the concept of corporations as people, etc. But it also demands such things are increased federal involvement in jobs and business (replacing corporations with bureaucracies), the rather utopian desire to end all wars, and (inexplicably for a document that is supposed to be about economics) a demand that gay “marriage” be made available.

Behind the scenes the OWS movement is having many internal problems that the King finds problematic; violence and sexual assault are common and the assaulted are pressured to remain silent; millions of dollars have been donated frequently from groups that are contrary to Catholic, Distributist, and Edanian ethics, and that money has been placed into the very banks they are protesting and are controlled by a small group of protesters. Violence and threats against outsiders is commonplace, as is vandalism and general lawlessness.

Some within the Distributists groups have embraced the OWS protests as an inherently good thing, seemingly under the concept of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'. In reality, though, the enemy of my enemy is just a stranger. The Socialist/Anarchist/Direct Democracy members of OWS that clamor for more government involvement in wages, employment, immigration, medicine, and family law are not allies to Distributism nor are they friendly to the morals and ethics that undergird Distributism.

An Integrated Life

  HRM Jennifer has a particular fondness for the painting posted above not just because of the composition, nor the skill, but for the attitudes expressed. People in the fields pausing in their labor as the procession passes by. No church is seen, but faith is everywhere. Prayers are not 'over there' or 'in that place', but everywhere and at all times. When HRM Jennifer first saw it she said,
   "That! That is what Edan is about - an integrated life!"
 
  Much has been written about the dangers of separating the aspects of life one from another. Hannah Arendt in particular theorized that the simplest manner to get an average person to commit evil is to simply declare it 'official' and segregate it from the rest of the person's life. Many experiments over the years have shown this segregation of life, this disconnection of work from family, of ethics from labor, to be capable of persuading normal people that evil is acceptable.
  But this separation can lead to a more pervasive and subtle breakdown, the isolation of ethics from virtually all aspects of life is just the furthest example of the isolation of the various aspects of life one from another. We learn in schools, but nowhere else. We pray in church, but nowhere else. We are kind to our own family, but no one else. We expect our children to be truthful but lie to our boss about being sick. In such a milieu moral relativism must result because our morals are relative within our selves, first.
  Now, some argue that the Enlightenment is to blame, other that the Enlightenment was the outgrowth of the beginnings of this trend, but such differences are, in the end, moot next to the fact that the general culture now elevates the separation of the elements of life to a crowning virtue. Not just the separation of church and state, which is repeated ad nauseum, but the expectation that politics (and science) is separate from standard moral judgement. A political candidate who appears to have a religious affiliation that is more than superficial is expected to announce that such attachments will not influence his or her political decision. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this is the obvious relief felt by such a candidates supporters, who often applaud their favored candidate's announcement that they will never allow their moral convictions to influence their political behavior!

  Once this isolation of life is entrenched the society which embraces it begins to collapse and the members of that culture who most closely grasp separation are the most baffled; why do fees and taxes that impact parents reduce the number of children? Why should reducing regulations on business's ethical practices decrease workplace safety and increase unemployment? Why did the creation of incentives for single mothers lead to an explosive increase in out-of-wedlock births? Such people are literally incapable of realizing the consequences of actions; and why should they? Their culture, education, and society all repeatedly tell them that ethics is over there, work is over here, politics is somewhere else and they all stand isolated from one another.
  This is why so many in our modern culture simply cannot grasp the critical importance of family to society. They cannot grasp that society is simply family writ large. Again, why should they? "Family" isn't at work (where 'family issues' can cost you your job) nor school (where the 'family' is just an extension of the educational apparatus to ensure homework is done) nor politics (where loyalty to party is supreme). Taxes, laws, policies that weaken or destroy families?
  "Who cares?', they say "The family is just an outmoded symbol used by social conservatives."
  And then they bemoan the fact that crime is up, and businesses are unethical, children aren't being educated, and nothing seems to get done anymore....

  The nature of the Edanian government is an attempt to avoid this; leaders are part of the community and the relationship between the governed and the political leadership is explicit and personal. But as we build our own, unique culture we must remember this painting at the top; faith and family are part and parcel of everything we do. Whether we are farmers or programmers, nobles or commoners, parents or clergy we are part of the family of Edan.

An article from the Distributist Review...

On the loss of access to leaders and power in democracy can be found here. It is related to this and this.

Democracy, Monarchy, Management, and Leadership

One common question that we face is ‘why do you support monarchy?’ in one of its various forms. After all, in the current world some variation of representative democracy seems to be the only way to govern. The fall of the Soviet Union led to an assumption that corporate capitalist democracy, socialist democracy, or some other flavor of representative democracy is the path the world is on.

Of course, the last 10 years have shown the faults of this assumption. From the balkanization of former Soviet territories into new nations to the repeated economic shocks which the most mature democracies of the West have only made worse the evidence shows that representative democracy will, to paraphrase John Adams, always destroy itself.

But why is that? From Greece to dozens of modern examples democracy fails. Some argue that Pareto was correct in arguing that democracy is a façade; others that Friedman was correct when he argued that voters are irrational in their voting choices; others argue that the ephemeral nature of a government that changes every few years makes it too unstable to survive; and, perhaps, Machiavelli was correct when he argued that, in the end, democracy breaks down when people realize they can vote themselves anything – and do.

When we speak of the failure of democracies we often hear the counter-argument that ‘monarchies were no better! There were many examples of terrible kings’. This is true. But it always makes us wonder – why do advocates of democracy excuse bad presidents and prime ministers while praising democracy but hold monarchy doomed by bad kings? Either a badly chosen person dooms the entire system, or it does not.

However, this does point out that both of these failures, the collapse of democracy and the danger of a bad king, both spring from the dichotomy that separates democracy from monarchy. This dichotomy has always existed but in the modern world it seems almost invisible. Indeed, some argue it doesn’t exist. In general this dichotomy is skills versus character. Or, as we call it, management versus leadership.

Management is a set of skills; planning your time; prioritizing tasks; communicating with and among subordinates, peers, and superiors; the documentation of procedures; etc. In the modern world many people, especially people who teach management skills. Include leadership as a skill. We posit that this concept, that leadership Is a skill on par with prioritizing tasks and that leadership can be learned in the classroom by anyone willing to do the homework, is one of the root causes of the recent economic difficulties. Time after time in the dot com burst and in the current recession there were stories of a major company, investment firm, venture capital group, Fortune 100 company, etc. where the people at the top had made catastrophic decisions which lead to the firm being in great peril. And time and again we learned that the response of these managers was to evade responsibility, hide the risks, and do their utmost to continue to gain great wealth for themselves at the expense of investors, shareholders, employees, even their own families.

Most, if not almost all, of these top business managers were, we are told, our ‘best and brightest’; graduates of Ivy League schools with MBAs from the top universities. Of course, ‘MBA’ stands for ‘Master of Business Administration’ and means that, as we stated, all of these managers responsible for costing millions of people trillions of dollars due to their own terrible management were trained that leadership is a skill that you can write down in your planner.

If leadership isn’t a skill, though, what is it? Leadership is the combination of traits and behaviors that cause you to be effective in giving purpose, direction, and motivation to others. The core traits of a leader are justice, courage, prudence, and temperance. These are called the Cardinal Virtues because you cannot have any unless you have all. To the best of our knowledge the only academic institutions that still strive to instill these virtues are the various military academies of the world, and they have varying degrees of emphasis on them (and, of course, varied results). The examples of business managers show the woeful lack of these traits in the financial world of corporate capitalism. Indeed, if anything the various crises of the last few decades show that the men and women from the ‘best’ schools are trained to embrace corruption, cowardice, foolishness, and gluttony.

History shows us that over time democracies slowly reject leadership in favor of management. Leaders come and go as elections pass by, meaning that it is difficult to judge the character of potential leaders – only skills can be assessed. Eventually the people elevate skills above character in the public sphere. Over time this elevation of skills over character becomes common in private life, as well. This erosion of admiration of virtuous character eventually leads to moral decline in society and leaders until Pareto, Friedman, and Machiavelli are shown to be correct.
This also explains the strength and weakness of monarchy. Monarchs and nobles are raised from birth to be leaders – if all goes well. The great monarchs and nobles of the past (as opposed to, perhaps, the great conquerors) displayed excellent character while the examples that discredit monarchies in the eyes of its foes were as flawed in character as any politician in a democracy.
At the same time the reliance of a kingdom upon the good character of its leaders encourages the elevation of those virtues throughout the citizenry. This is especially true when it is possible for a citizen to be elevated to the nobility by virtue and for a noble to lose their position through turpitude. When leadership is based upon and dependent upon moral, upright character then morality and virtues are esteemed and rewarded while immorality and baseness are despised and rejected. The reason that morality is rejected and baseness embraced in the modern West is because, inevitably, democracy rejects virtue and good character.

Feudal Technocratic Distributism

As I mentioned earlier, the (rather unwieldy) name I have for the general theory of how Edan would work (and remember, Edan is an attempt to build a new way for all countries to work) is Feudal Technocratic Distributism. The name leads directly to a question – what the heck does that mean? Let’s take the name one element at a time to illustrate the idea.

‘Feudal’ is, of course, from feudalism. Feudalism was a system that included political power, social norms, and economics as a whole. Essentially, the feudal system made explicit the social contract (the feudal lord protected the lives, rights, and property of his subjects and they, in turn, provided services to the feudal lord to allow him to devote his time to his duties). It was typically a localized system where individuals had direct relationships with their leaders. Day to day governmental activity ranging from military training to taxes to lawsuits were local. Loyalty to the King was a method of preventing the fragmentation of society into dozens of smaller states (and the resulting increase in warfare) and also created a situation where the average person policed the loyalty of their leaders to the greater good. In addition to the explicitly personal nature of government, feudalism also tended to result in decisions and authority being delegated as locally as possible. Lords were jealous of their rights; the people were likewise jealous of their rights and leery of distant, impersonal authority. These social pressures combined to cause the reverse of the federal systems – distributed power and a strong disincentive to a large, central, impersonal bureaucracy.

When I speak of ‘technocracy’ I mean the political science meaning, not the political movement that began in the 1920’s. While Edan will not be ‘ruled by technical experts’ per se, technical experts will be involved within government in leadership roles based upon the existence of governmental monopolies (a topic for a near-future post). I plan to devote much more time to explaining this soon, so please bear with me.

Distributism is an economic system developed in many parts of the world prior to the Industrial revolution and then superseded by laissez-faire Capitalism via a number of mechanisms. Sometimes called the ‘Third Way’ (with Capitalism and Socailism/Communism being the other two ‘ways’), the goal of Distributism is to have as many families/individuals within a society as possible be economically independent or, at least, members of member-driven cooperatives and guilds. Like feudalism (an political system which ‘bleeds into’ social structures and economics), Distributism crosses over into social and political spheres by its nature.

By examining these elements, I hope you can see that they came from somewhere – that somewhere is Catholic social teachings – even though I didn’t know very much at all about catholic social teachings when I began Edan 8 years ago. In this case, while searching for arguments to bolster my own inchoate ideas of a just society I learned that the details had been worked out by others long ago. I hope that my synthesis of these ideas can lead Edan to be an example of a nation more just, more free, and more good than any that have come before.

The very intimidating-sounding Feudal Technocratic Distributism can be boiled down to a number of points that can help anyone understand the goals and methods involved.

These points are:

1. All men have a right to private property.

2. All men have a right to just compensation for their labor and their goods.

3. All business arrangements, including employment, must be entered into freely.

4. Private ownership of property is good for the person, the family, and the nation as a whole.

5. Work (whether physical, artistic, or intellectual) is a form of personal property.

6. Leadership and responsibility should be as small and local as possible.

7. All families should be as self-sufficient as is possible.

The last point is key and prevents Edan from being a game:

8. There is no utopia.

The Current State of Theory

As I mentioned in an earlier piece, the initial focus of Edan was on creating a model of how government can remain as direct, local, and (really) comprehensible as possible. Modern nation-states are too distant, too centralized, and too dependent upon a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy; the average citizen has literally no contact with leaders and little chance (or incentive!) to understand the size and scope of government.

With the goal of keeping the government as personal as possible while maintaining social cohesion and the ability to grow (the goal is a real-world nation, eventually) and have the potential for a strong, central response in times of real crisis, I was at a bit of a loss at first. The initial idea, a Constitutional Monarchy, was not a solution; there are dozens of CM’s in Europe that are currently stable and easily as impersonal as the massive Federal systems of places like America or the Party Systems of China and its clones.

After reflection, I realized that at least some of the stability of a CM comes from the monarch, themselves. This pushed me to modify the constitution and create the Nobility – embodiments of the government. A name, face, even family that was both personally responsible for and to the people they governed. Add in the ability of the King to revoke nobility for failure to fulfill the responsibilities of leadership and a Senate of elected representatives, and I felt I was almost done. Local, direct leaders for the people with clear chains of responsibility and appeal with the King and Senate watching the nobles and each other for abuses. The King is the focal point of the nation as a whole, creating cohesion, and with emergency powers could use the resources of the entire nation to deal with threats.

But it isn’t quite done. I fear that a large legislature will lead inevitably to a large bureaucracy. I am also concerned with power ‘creeping up the chain’ and becoming more centralized which will, eventually, mean a large, impersonal Crown government and a faceless bureaucracy. Further, large corporation can and do have serious power within any society and they are the business world’s incarnation of federal government and impersonal bureaucracy! Toss in my acting Minister of State reminding me of such things as the need for a central authority to create roads, canals, airports, and lay utilities and I realized that even the Third Draft of the Constitution is too much Business and Government as Usual.

What to do? The constitution can’t cover everything. So: the constitution will deal with the King, the Nobles, the Assembly, and the Courts. Everything else must be codified into law or, even better, made a societal norm. Certain functions of the government, especially roads and utilities, must be centrally controlled, but in a way that maximizes efficiency (like business) but avoids placing profits over people (the government is about serving citizens, not making a profit).

About this time I learned of Distributism, the ‘third way’ economic theory from the end of the 19^th Century that was quite popular until WWII. Eschewing the collectivism and tyranny of Communism and Socialism, the authoritarianism of Fascism, and the self-destructive aspects of laissez-faire Capitalism, Distributism shares many of the goals of Edan in the economic sphere – keep business as small as possible, as local as possible, and as personal as possible. Voluntary private restrictions are preferred over legislations. The primary goal is weal, not profit. To fit the ideas of the semi-Feudal structure of the government together with the idea of natural monopolies for certain functions and a Distributist economic outlook, I devised a tentative framework I am currently calling Feudal Technocratic Distributism.

I will go into more detail in future pieces, especially since I am still working out the details!