A Royal Address for the week of September 1st, 2013

To the Citizens and Nobles of Edan and the Peoples of all the World, Greetings.

  As global tensions remain high we have been repeatedly asked for our position on the unrest within the Middle East. To repeat a phrase from an opinion issued during the revolt in Libya,

"We have watched the various rebellions in the Middle East with the sadness that comes from having predicted the events years ago and realizing that these revolts are in response to the natural desire for a proper, personal government based upon joint moral obligations and that successful rebellions may, in the long term, be worse than the status quo because the rebels only know what they do not want"

  It brings us no joy to see our predictions proven correct in Libya, Egypt, and other, similar, nations.  We are no champion of dictators, but the current chaos was too predictable to make the time, methods, and actors of change more palatable.
  Syria is slightly different. Assad does not embrace the core concepts of Edan, but the forces that have been fighting to overthrow him are, again, no more palatable. The recent apparent use of chemical weapons has attracted increased foreign scrutiny of this terrible conflict, but no more clarity and certainly no greater moral standing on any side.
  Before continuing, let us make clear a few points. Edan currently has no citizens within the borders of Syria unless they are currently travelling; Edan has no level of diplomatic exchange with Syria; Edan has no economic interests in or related to Syria or the Syrian government.
  The Assad regime is the recognized legitimate government of Syria by international treaty, diplomatic relations, and UN membership. According to the Montevideo Convention (to whom the United States is a signatory but Syria is not) which in article 3 states that,

“The state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.”

  and in article 8 states,

“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

  Together these show that the United States is bound to treat the Syrian government's defense of its own integrity against either internal rebellion or outside subversion as legal and internal and to not interfere in this conflict unless the Syrian government requests it.
  The United States being bound by this convention could be argued to not apply to Syria, which is not a signatory. However, the United States, France, and Syria are all members of the United Nations and signatories to the UN Charter, which has the legal power of a treaty. The UN Charter repeats the provisions of the Montevideo Convention in slightly different language including article 2, paragraph 4 which states,

"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

  And in article 51 states,

 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”

  Together, these clearly state that unless the United Nations Security Council authorizes such intervention no UN member can legally do the things being publicly debated by various members of the UN, including 'limited strikes' or 'regime change'.
  There are some claims that [paraphrase] 'the use of chemical weapons allows [some nation or group] to directly intervene in the absence of UN Security Council approval'.  We assume this is a reference the the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which permits slightly more broad action of its signatories.
  This is, bluntly, false. The CWC only permits assistance and cooperation between signatories, it does not allow various signatories to pursue unilateral international actions against other members who violate the treaty. Further, even if it did, it only permits actions by and between entities which are members of the CWC - and Syria is not a CWC signatory.

  Let us be clear; we are not so naive as to think that 'international law' is more than a vague hope for some and a thin screen for realpolitik for others. At the same time, however, treaties are meant to be as binding as internal laws upon their signatories. This is certainly the conceit of the United States as it attempts to use treaties to force internal change upon other nations in its pursuit of American tax revenue. If the United States demands that other signatories cleave to the letter and spirit of a tax treaty, should they not be expected by other nations to do the same regarding the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, etc?
  Certainly the United States is not alone. Great Britain was eager to likewise violate a variety of its treaties, as France remains.
  Thus, before we even grapple with the uncertainty of who is at fault for the origin of Syria's internal strife, who performed the chemical weapons attacks (and there have been at least 4), or the moral standing of any of the parties involved we must understand that this is, in the end, Syria's war to fight.

Royal Address on the Global Economic Crisis

To the Citizens and Nobles of Edan and the Peoples of all the World, Greetings.

We are aware that the current economic shock is affecting many people, even most people, all over the world in a negative way; many people have lost employment, have lost homes, face a future of decreased actual income and increased prices, and face a lack of credit.

This last element of the crisis, a ‘lack of credit’, actually tells us all a great deal about the origins of the current crisis. For many decades legions of economists, scholars, and political leaders of the secular world have insisted that there are only two ways to approach the economy – Communism/Socialism on the one hand, and laissez faire Capitalism on the other.

This is a false dichotomy born of Modernism/Naturalism. In reality, both sides of this equation share a common element in that each system treats human beings as means to ends; Communism/Socialism treats people as a means to labor, Capitalism treats people as a means to profit. This failure to recognize people as ends in themselves fatally undermines each outlook. The inevitable result is that these economic theories’ conflict with reality leads to economic disruptions. In the face of these disruptions, leaders who embrace these theories try to alleviate the stress.

But the champions of the false dichotomy have been so successful in the academies and parliaments of the world that as each system fails (as they must) the response is either to meld the two or to declare that ‘proper Communism/Capitalism has not yet been tried, so we must become more extreme in our devotion to an ideal Communism/Capitalism’.

The long term effects of melding the two systems are to diminish what strengths they each have apart and to magnify their separate weaknesses. The short terms effects of extremist positions are the sacrifice of human dignity and even life upon the altar of a false ideal of economics. For example, adding some elements of Capitalism to a primarily Communist system does provide an immediate, albeit minor, increase in personal autonomy to the citizens of the state in question. However, the long term effect is to increase the economic system’s need for growth, resulting in greater disruptions eventually limiting the choices available to people within the system as effectively as Communist controls. Similarly, adding Communist-style centralized controls to a Capitalist system creates some immediate relief from the never-ending demand for accelerating growth, but at the expense of the autonomy that makes choices available for individuals, meaning the next, unavoidable, economic disruption will be more severe because people have fewer and fewer means of preparing for and reacting to economic issues.

Thus we return to the current ongoing collapse of the global markets. On one economic pole of this global economy is the United States, a nominally Capitalist country that has embraced Socialist practices for decades. The other pole is China, a nominally Communist nation that has embraced Capitalist practices for decades. The other nations of the world, broadly speaking, fall somewhere between these two economic powerhouses. In every nation the results are the same, if differing slightly in emphasis; the economy is predicated upon the Capitalistic basis of perpetual growth and guided with the Communist goal of replacing personal responsibility with a form of collective will. a will defined and enforced by the state, leading to limited personal autonomy.

The United States suffers more from a requirement of perpetual growth and China more from a decline in individual autonomy, but each is facing the same barrier – the failure of their theories in the face of reality. The reaction of political and academic leaders has reflected the habit of Modernism to reject reality in favor of theory. Thus the United States is attempting to force growth by expending vast sums in what seems to be an attempt to, as one American leader phrased it, ‘spend their way out of bankruptcy’. China is currently waiting to see how the United States’ gambit works, but are almost certainly prepared to further limit their people in an attempt to, again, force growth by giving even more power to the people that created the current crisis.

This growth simply cannot happen for one simple reason – fewer people. Modernism’s embrace of the idea of people as means rather than ends has so devalued human life that Modernists stopped having children in normal quantity generations ago. Now there are fewer people of working age than of retirement age, a trend that will continue for decades. In the face of a reduced demand for everything from houses to hats the economy cannot do what Capitalism demands it do – grow. Communism’s control of people is so inefficient and onerous that it tends to delay the collapse, but exacerbate it when it does finally arrive. In the end, the Modernism that accompanies both Capitalism and Communism/Socialism dooms both.

But, what then are we left to do? If we have rejected Communism/Socialism and Capitalism, what is left?

The answer is Distributism. Distributism is based upon Catholic social teaching, a cornerstone of which is the idea that people are always ends in and of themselves. The core ideas of Distributism are quite simple;

1. All men have a right to private property, to just compensation for their goods and labor, and to
enter into business agreements – including employment – of their own free will.

2. Private ownership of property and work are good both for the individual and society as a whole. Work can be physical, artistic, or intellectual.

3. That responsibility and decision-making should be ‘pushed down’ as close to the individual as possible; a national government is less efficient at and less capable of making good decisions than the regional government, the region less so than the municipality, etc. down to the family itself.

4. Private organizations are better at getting things done than governments or their agencies; smaller groups are generally better than larger; individuals and families over all are the best.

5. The more local, the better.

6. All families should be as self-sufficient as possible.

7. Coops and Guilds are preferred over corporations and unions. This also means credit unions are to be preferred over banks.

8. When engaged in business-to-business ventures, avoid middle-men and deal as directly as possible with the end client/end user.

9. Government welfare programs are to be eliminated whenever possible, reduced or avoided otherwise.

10. There is no utopia, and there never will be.

As is plainly evident, these economic principles require neither perpetual growth nor strong central control. But the greatest difference between Distributism and either Communism/Socialism and Capitalism is that its focus is not upon product (be it labor, goods, or profit), but on people. This acceptance of reality, this acknowledgment that ‘economics’ is really just people living their lives, is why Distributism is the answer to the current economic crises; because the crises isn’t truly about economics, but actually about how we think of and treat people.

Since Distributism was first described various people and groups have called it a ‘Third Way’ of economics. The Catholic Church has continually denied that it is, indeed, the third way. We believe that this is for one simple reason.

It is the only way.


Given by our hand this 24th day of July in the year 2009 Anno Domini

Ricardus Rex Edani