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.

Aristocracy and Society, part 2

As discussed in part I, equality of people means that all people are equal in their basic human rights; no more. In other areas people vary, often widely, in areas of physical and mental ability. This results, naturally and justly, into hierarchies among men in any group, institution or society.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.

Aristocracy and Society, part 1

[from HRH Jonathan]
The Modern Western World demands a form of total equality of everyone exposed to it's touch, an idea that has become ubiquitous. Popular entertainment, education, and such all decry sexism and racism as evil while otherwise denying the possibility of objective morality. Discrimination is painted as one of the greatest of crimes.
However, there are problems with this attitude on the subject. Some forms of discrimination, such as attacks on certain religions or regions, are ignored or even celebrated (can you imagine the stereotypes of American Southerners being as broadly condemned as stereotypes or, say, American Blacks?). Another problem is far more insidious; the belief that any form of stratified social structure or other limitations based on personal status are discrimination.
This is an argument against aristocracies about as old as the French Revolution. There is a pervading vision of the Middle Ages as a time of oppression, with very wealthy and very haughty nobles lording their status over the poor serfs, women being held as completely useless for everything except childbirth, and paranoid kings declaring war on anyone who doesn't share their exact beliefs, a "Dark Age'. Continuing this popular myth, it is also thought that the revolution of democracy reversed this cruel situation of tyranny. All men were finally treated justly, women were finally not just property, governments became inherently enlightened. Of course, this popular myth is just that - myth. Historians don't use the term 'Dark Ages', bad kings were the exception, some of the richest and most powerful people of the Middle Ages were women, etc. But the myth lives on, stronger than reality in the common wisdom.
There are 2 very similar myths commonly held that are perpetuated by, and in turn empower, the concept of feminism. First is the idea that somehow before about 1965 or so women were not allowed to get an education or work outside the home but were kept in a type of slavery in the kitchen. The other is that that any differences between the sexes other than those necessary to reproduction are strictly non-physical social constructs.
Actually, women were receiving excellent educations at college for centuries before the coining of the term 'feminist'; from the Seven Sisters in America to the various women's colleges in Europe women did, yes, have opportunities for advancement in academia and the professional world. As far as work outside the home, women have always done so - throughout urban life the goal of women was being lucky and successful enough to only work in the home. To illustrate this point, the only woman to win the American Medal of Honor was an Army Doctor - in the American Civil War.
There are, or course, irrefutably obvious differences between the sexes beyond the obvious. Differences in musculature, vision, digestion, even neurochemistry. To admit than men are naturally stronger than women no more makes one superior to the other than does the admission that women have better balance than men. But to deny these realities makes it much easier to deny other things, such as the fact that boys and girls are ready to learn certain topics at different ages so holding both to the same academic standards at young ages is an error. With the dozens of differences in physical and mental form and ability, is it truly oppressive and wrong that there are social and political differences?
The claim is that men have discriminated against women throughout history, because in traditional societies men occupy higher positions in the business, politics, warfare, and religion, while women were focused into caring for families misses the point. The division of labor that makes the family the core of society and civilization leads naturally to such divisions at the larger level, as well. While men may dominate politics, women dominate societal norms, an area that arguably has much more actual influence on say-to-day life.
And we must at all times remember the great rule: There are exceptions to every rule when it comes to people. St. Claire, Elizabeth II, and Boudicca all show that in staunchly patriarchal societies women, too, have political and military leadership roles to fill. Thus it is a gender role, not a gender rule. And this gender dynamic has always been in place for a very good reason: There are exceptions to every rule, but in terms of a majority it is still a rule. Though people such as Saint Joan of Arc or Fa Mulan exist, and are perhaps more common then some think, they are still a rarity, and it is the same on the other side of the equation.
But the disruption of traditional structures was not limited to gender norms, there was also a breakdown of class distinctions. The aristocracies were annihilated, and royal houses were deposed, all in the name of progress. But the idea that history is indomitable march towards the future is yet another myth, and the destruction of the hated class system in the name of 'progress' was a dire mistake by the revolutionaries who, in the end, were merely murderers.
Class distinctions have always existed in nearly every Culture above the hunter-gatherer stage. Certainly those which were morally and politically stable had them, and often we find that the sharpness of the distinction is proportional to the stability imparted. Compare Athens to Imperial China for instance, or the Zulu tribes to pre-revolutionary England. Now it is true that stability is not a substitute for morality, but with stability any morality that is in place is unlikely to go away. The codes of Chivalry and Bushido only grew during the rule of aristocratic monarchy in their respective lands, and then vanished with said systems taking with them the codes that channeled the power and strength of the ruling classes toward weal rather than egoism.
The modern thought on traditional class distinctions is a rather universal; "They're evil!". I still do not truly know why. The Enlightenment was a rebellion of the middle and upper-middle classes and it spread a great deal of propoganda, perhaps this is the reason. In any case it is doubtless that the democratic revolutions around the late 1700s and early 1800s considered the nobility and any real political class distinction to be their enemies even as they placed land-owning, gender, and race-based limitations on voting. This caused a great deal of the prejudice we see today. But it is important to remember that it is impossible to break human nature, if there is not a stratified society by design, there will eventually be a stratified society by opportunity. If by Culture and Government there is an existing aristocratic class with distinct duties, goals, and privileges, and limitations then those with the ambition to rise, whether it be good or bad, will have a channel for this ambition. Whereas if there is no existing position to aspire to, then those who would rise high must make their positions, and this is usually very bad. And in the absence of a societal framework many of the duties and limitations will be weak or non-existant, leaving only the power. Giving someone who would become a noble or a general freedom to tailor a position to their own ends is a ticket to disaster, for if this ambition is born of a hunger for power then the ambitious will be free to indulge. Even those with good intentions are likely to stumble when given absolute freedom in this regard, who could resist righting one more wrong?
While there were certainly tyrants in the 'old days' were robber barons any different, other than there being fewer societal checks on their abuses? Today there are corrupt politicians and corporate plutocrats in startling numbers, all able to avoid the ostracism of their peers for we have done away with the Peerage. Mean-spirited nobles have been replaced with graft-ridden senators (no change except that a Senator has no concerns for the lands his heirs will inherit), dark hearted merchant lords have been replaced by all-controlling CEOs (no change at all). And at the same time great nobles have been replaced by voters, and charitable guildsmen have been replaced by unions constantly falling prey to corruption. As much as free-markets and democracies have done to increase profits, they have done more to decrease duty and honor by seeing them as valueless in 'the market'.
All these things are together in my arguments because they are all a different extension of the same principal, segregation. No, not the legal segregation of an oppressed group from its overlords, but the natural separation of the elements of society, even if only leaders from others. While a harsh segregation with no room to change or be an exception is flawed and doomed to failure, I have no doubt that a flexible one is an important part of any stable society. It may seem stifling and wrong when read and spoken of here, but segregation has existed throughout history, and whenever it is taken away darkness follows. There are too many dangers in blurring the lines, and not enough rewards. True equality can only be found in Anarchy, and Anarchy is only destructive, never constructive.
Many problems exploding in this era we are in can be attributed to a breakdown of barriers in society: homosexuality seen as 'no different than' normal behavior; near-plutocracy, rabid entitlement, and other such issues. And so I conclude that civilization needs and aristocracy, and soon.

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.

Crown Prince Jonathan and the Order of St. Louis

This Friday, February 4th, at the Church of St. Francis HRH Jonathan will be accepted into the Order of St. Louis as a squire. The Pastor of St. Francis shall lead a ritual beginning with a blessing of HRH Jonathan's sword and ending with a vigil before the Blessed Sacrament.

Please join us in congratulating HRH Jonathan on his upcoming honors!

More on Theory and How Things Work

A problem that faces any nation (indeed, any group) is the issue of free riders – people who enjoy the benefits of a group but do not pay a full share of the costs of providing the same benefits. This really only refers to people who choose to be free riders, not people that are, for example, too poor to pay taxes because of a disability. Instead, a free rider would be someone who exploited loopholes in the law to avoid paying taxes at the same level as their peers.

Most states deal with free riders by using state power to coerce participation, usually via mandatory taxes, military draft, compulsory jury duty, etc. In Edan, this situation is a bit more direct since all adult citizens make a personal Oath of Fealty to at least the King and many will also make an Oath of Fealty to their direct noble. This Oath is an acknowledgement that the citizen owes duty to the King and Kingdom as much as the King and Kingdom owes duty to the citizen. This direct and explicit social contract makes free riders more or a social problem in Edan.

On the other hand, one of the goals of the Kingdom is to limit both centralized power as much as possible and to reduce the direct interference of government into the lives of citizens. We end up with the following dilemma:

1) The Kingdom has a duty to its citizens

2) Citizens have a duty to the Kingdom

3) Any services provided for citizens by the Kingdom that do not have compulsory support will result in some citizens being free riders

4) Thus, any services provided by the Kingdom that are not compulsory will, eventually, collapse

5) The Kingdom is designed to avoid compulsion

The answer is two-fold. First, the Kingdom as a whole (i.e., the Royal government) must restrict the services it provides to only those which only the Royal government can provide or are of such a nature that participation = support.

An example of the first sort of service (something only the Royal government can provide) is the Royal Bank. This central bank will operate as the central bank of any modern nation; setting monetary policy. An example of the second sort of service is the Royal Post; unless you buy postage and submit a letter, you do not participate in the service; buying the stamp supports the service.

But what of other services? For example; in any territory the laying of sewers or the creation of a power grid requires access to multiple jurisdictions (in this case, the territories of every landed Noble as well as access to the freeholds of every citizen). The legal difficulties for any entity other than the Crown are large and the entry costs for any competitors very harsh. This tends to indicate that monopoly conditions would exist is a laissez-faire marketplace, a result that is unacceptable in private hands. Therefore, certain utilities will be limited Royal monopolies. This means that these functions will be built and maintained by the King and the Nobles for the benefit of citizens as a function of government. Primarily, these Royal monopolies will be public roads, electricity, water treatment and mass public water, sewage, and large-scale natural gas.

More on this will be discussed in a later piece.

But other actions that many in the modern world see as ‘government services’ but were known until quite recently as ‘charity’ will not be a function of government. This ranges from cash assistance to the poor to education funded by Royal tax monies. You see, in addition to the free rider problem, these programs have historically ended up being excuses for the growth of governmental power at the expense of freedom. One good example is the German parents either in prison or facing it for teaching their own children, an action supported by the courts of the European Union. The principles of Distributism must guide Edanians to push such works as locally as possible; people educating their own children or forming their own local schools; local charities formed by local people and local churches; aid coming from communities, not into it.

This will lead to the next series of pieces about: Distributism as an economic, social, and political ideology; Feudal technocracy and how it might work in the modern world; how to keep the best of competition while avoiding the worst of laissez-faire Capitalism; the pitfalls of Royal monopolies.

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!