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.

In the Grip of Forces Beyond Their Ken - a guest post on Economics

  HRH Richard recently posted a link to an article about Distributism as an example of the uphill battle we face merely to undo the misconceptions others hold about the very core concepts of Distributism. The author of the piece, Kevin D. Williamson, makes the most common of errors: thinking that 'Distributism' is about 'controlling or planning the distribution of goods'. As I said, this is a very common error, but a profound one. 
  More critically it demonstrates clearly and directly that Mr. Williamson quite literally does not know what he is talking about. 
  Of course Mr. Williamson also reveals a painful ignorance of human history. He writes,

  "In the 200,000-year history of Homo sapiens, neither of those great religious traditions [Buddhism and Catholicism], nor anything else that human beings ever came up with, made a dent in the poverty rate. Capitalism did."

  If it were not said with such earnestness I would assume this was clumsy satire. But I must conclude that Mr. Williamson is, in fact, totally ignorant of the huge impact of the monastery system upon European, North African, and Middle Eastern poverty.
  Yes, many of the gains the Church won between 600 AD and 1600 AD were wiped out as  the common man suffered from Islamic invaders as well as by the dismantling of the monastery system in Europe by the Industrial Revolution, both of which  returned vast swaths of people to poverty. Mr. Williamson also seems ignorant of the fact that the nutrition and calorie count of a Medieval British peasant was better than a modern British citizen until the mid- to late- 20th century. And, of course, the medieval peasant had more leisure time and more of them were self-employed than a modern worker under Capitalism. 
  I am sure that the lack of debt-backed money in the peasant's pocket will be profound to Mr. Williamson in some manner, but I remain unconvinced that a British citizen of 1930 was substantially better off than a British citizen of 1330.
  It could also be pointed out that the greatest increases in human prosperity came from: the aftermath of the Black Death; the development of the various manorial systems we lump together as Feudalism; the monastic system previously mentioned; and the economics system called Mercantilism. In an historical analysis of economics and prosperityCapitalism is a flagging fifth at 'making a dent' in poverty!
  Then again, Mr. Williamson thinks Distributism would involve 'the State' deciding wages, union rules, etc. which, of course, Distributism explicitly wants the State to have as little to do with as possible.

  Mr. Williamson, who I must admit is consistent in error, also states,

  "Catholic thinking about the role of the state has evolved precious little since “render unto Caesar"..."

  Again, if he were not so earnest I would assume this was a joke. But it is a rather telling mistake. Indeed, all Mr. Williamson is doing in this sentence is admitting he is totally ignorant of an entire branch of political thought that includes works such as Augustine's The City of God, Aquinas' Summa Theologica, More's Utopia, and scores more books, many of which are considered essential reading for any serious student of politics or economics....

  Mr. Williamson does make arguments for Libertarianism.
  Well, actually- he has a series of clumsy emotional appeals, typically as part of childish jabs at the Church. These gems include such things as calling Distributism,

   "...a 19th-century [sic] model of economic analysis..."

  Does he consider Capitalism 'an 18th Century model of economics'? If not, why not? Distributism is, yes, based upon philosophical discourse that began in the 19th Century, but it was not even named until the 20th century and growth and development continue to this very day.

  Of all the various childish barbs he spouts, though, my personal favorite is this quote,

  "“The poor you will always have with you,” Jesus said, but in the capitalist world, that simply is not true"

  I must admit; I am not sure if I am more impressed with his disregard for the many poor that still exist within the realm of Capitalism or his unmitigated gall in implying Capitalism trumps Christ.

  Regardless, this article did little more than to convince me that Mr. Williamson is an ignorant hack with an axe to grind with the Church because it wants all activity to be moral and ethical, including business.
  If this sounds harsh and uncharitable to you, please understand - Mr. Williamson has decided to not just argue about economics but take a very direct stance of attacking the Church and its bishops. He has demonstrated that he is no gentleman both in this article and in his public conduct.

  So why am I writing an obscure writer of demonstrated limited knowledge of the topics he writes about?   There are two reasons; Mr. Williamson has waded into a discussion of Distributism and Mr. Williamson released this article today. The critical quote in the piece is not his discussion of profits (after all, just profit is a key element of Distributism) but rather this interesting quote,

  "...large, powerful firms such as McDonald’s and Walmart are effectively unable to raise prices, and firms such as Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo are unable to dictate wages."

  This is a profound statement from a Libertarian. This is a claim that 'large, powerful' corporations are effectively helpless; gripped by economic forces of the market so pervasive, so powerful, so primal that there is nothing they can do to affect them; like ships in a typhoon, they are tossed about by wind and wave, helpless.
  Let us assume that Mr. Williamson is correct - in a laissez-faire Capitalist free market system (or however close we are) macroeconomics are so overwhelmingly true that a large firm is powerless against them. Let us also assume that the rest of his contentions are likewise true - no object has an objective value; there is no such thing as 'just wages' or 'a fair price'; etc. And, of course, a host of other things that neo-classical economists wish to be true.
  Together, these things imply that, if Mr. Williamson is correct, then large firms cannot be 'powerful' but are, rather, powerless. And we should therefore conclude that large firms are objectively bad because they obviate choice and thus remove freedom. Small firms do, indeed, trump large ones.
  Such is a key tenet of Distributism.

  But since Mr. Williamson has demonstrated that he is an ignorant hack I am hesitant to trust his analysis here. Just as I know that Rational Choice Theory is false I also know that the price for a charcoal grill at the local Walmart wasn't written by the Invisible Hand of the Market. As surely as I know that the theory of General Equilibrium is too off from reality to fit it, I also know that wage levels do not appear, pre-approved by the spectre of Adam Smith, on a whiteboard in Goldman Sach's HR department each Monday. 
  Further, if Mr. Williamson's contention were true there could never be a monopoly - any firm large enough to be able to constrain the market  would be too large to perform the actions needed to actually constrain the market.
  Yes, I am aware that some Libertarians claim that monopolies can only arise via governmental interference. I dismiss this for the claptrap that it is. Any analysis of the Standard Oil monopoly development proves this to be a falsehood.
  
  A key point to remember whenever thinking of economics is simply this - 'economics' is just a subset of 'human interaction'. Any claims such as, 

'morals and ethics have no place in economic theory'

  or, 

'large firms are so bound by the laws of economics that they cannot set prices or wages' 

you should translate to be,

'Morals and ethics have no place in human interaction'

  and

'large firms are so bound by human interactions that they can't set wages or prices'

  These claims, when understood for what they are, are laughable.  

  It does paint a chilling image of how Libertarians must see the world; a huge, impersonal place where they are not 'people' but merely 'labor' and the Iron Laws of Economics are so powerful that billionaire CEOs with HR departments staffed with scores of highly-educated wage and staffing specialists are unable to change prices or wages. 
  I prefer reality.

21st Century Monasteries and Edan

  Various institutions are releasing updated demographics numbers over the next few months and the initial reports are as expected; all of Asia is below replacement fertility, as is all of Europe, all of South America, North Africa, South Africa, and other areas are close. The global fertility rate has been dropping for 50 years and shows no signs of stopping within the next 25, especially since the fertility tempo (average age of the birth of a first child) is also increasing.
  The artificial gender imbalance caused by sex-selective abortion and ubiquitous ultrasounds means that the low fertility rates may be masking a more serious problem - sex ratios so skewed that the next generation will be much smaller than predicted. Areas of rural China have a 14 to 1 ratio of males to females in their young population (under 30 years old) and areas of India have an even higher imbalance, estimated to peak at almost 19 to 1. Overall these two nations alone have no less than 50 million men under the age of 30 who can never have a wife do to an artificial shortage of women.
  The impact has been horrific for women - human trafficking, ubiquitous sexual assault, and physical attacks.
  Meanwhile, the West continues to glorify hypergamy, fornication, and childlessness. Mass media dismisses the family and praises the ill and the dysfunctional. After creating an artificial 'teen culture' mass marketing continues their effort to sexualize all ages. Porn is prevalent to the point that actual art is being pushed out of public consciousness. And self-abuse so common that it is leading to mass impotence in the young.
  The apparent triumph of low, or 'pop'. culture, the dismissal of morals and ethics by those who shout from rooftops for money, the replacement of education with credentialism and the accompanying trend of people delaying marriage and children in pursuit of worthless credentials and the associated high debt will continue to drive down fertility well after demographic implosion begins to destroy the current economic system. After all, a system based upon the assumption of perpetual growth cannot survive contraction!
  And the weaknesses of Democracy are on full display as the various nation-states stagger toward the abyss.
  What can we do about this?
  Everything that matters.
  The core ideals and principles of Edan are focused not just on  the cardinal virtues but also on stability; Edan is meant to endure and thrive in the most difficult of times. How? It is structured like a family which, of course, reflects God's design. Rejecting the horrors of Communism and the dehumanizing effects of Capitalism; standing by the truth and rejecting relativism; maintaining and preserving high culture; reaching out to our neighbors in true charity. These are the things we can and will do.
  Some have called Catholic homeschoolers the monasteries of virtue of the current truly Dark Age. Edan will join them in preserving civic virtue in a world collapsing under the weight of evil.

Authentic Social Justice: the Core of Edan

  ">Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority"

Thus begins the catechism's section on Social Justice. What does it really mean? Well, when society allows justice to be done, you have social Justice - obviously. Social justice is part and parcel of both the common man and of leaders.
  Notice what it does not  say, however - it does not say that leaders or the common man must give justice to people or groups. It says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due. 
  In other words Social Justice is not the giving of things to people by government, it is the conditions of society that allow justice to be gained.

  The Catechism goes on to say,

"Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. "

  More briefly 'human rights are granted by God, not society, and the moral legitimacy of any worldly authority or society is based upon recognizing and supporting these rights'.  Or, 'any society or authority that denies the inherent, God-given rights of Man is not legitimate'.
  So governments, whatever their nature, must support the inherent rights of its people or it will have no legitimacy and and society that flaunts these rights is also illegitimate. This is key because it means that a core contention of Democracy, that legitimacy of society and authority is derived from the will of the people, i.e., the opinions of a majority of voters, is false. If 50.1% of voters support the murder of innocents that does not make the murder of innocents acceptable, it makes the society that supports such voters illegitimate.
  
  Later the catechism states,

"Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity."

Or 'the inherent rights of all men are the same'. The peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal; the stable boy has as much right to justice as the prince.

  It continues,

"On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The "talents" are not distributed equally...  ...These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures"

  More shortly, 'equality of inherent rights does not mean equality in all ways; people are tall and short, smart and dumb, skilled speakers and reticent, leaders and followers. These differences are part of God's plan and are good for all involved'. So while the peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal, the cardinal has gifts and authority the peasant does not. Likewise, while the stable boy has the same right to justice as the prince, the prince has duties and obligations the stable boy never will. And this is not just acceptable, it is good.

  The Catechism then warns us that,

">There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women...."

  In this the Catechism is speaking of when societies and leaders have or implement systems that impose sinful inequalities upon people. It continues with,

"...Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions."

  Remember how beginning of this piece we pointed out that,

"t says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due."

  This portion tells us that when society actively prevents people or groups from obtaining what is their due it is sinful.

  The Catechism concludes its section on Social Justice with,

" Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this."

  Or, 'love of neighbor and charity among and between people is the solution to social injustice'.

  So the central ideas of Social Justice are quite clear; be just and allow others to obtain justice; love your neighbor and be charitable.

  But are their guidelines for rulers and leaders as to the nuts and bolts of implementing this?

  The Catechism focuses heavily on Solidarity. Solidarity has two meanings; the earning of a livelihood through work and the friendship and social charity between all people in a society. At its heart Solidarity is the rejection of class as a dividing force between people. The poor are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the poor. The rich are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the rich. Emploers, workers, farmers, artisans, men, women, etc. - all are part of society. By rejecting class as a dividing factor it is also inherently a rejection of individualism as a defining element of humanity. While we are all individuals and have individual needs, etc. no one is ever alone and just as society is an outgrowth of the family no one in a society is capable of being truly apart from that society just as no man can ever not have a mother.
  Solidarity is also much more spiritual and emotional rather than material. The goal of Solidarity isn't wealth, the goal is justice. Granted, justice often leads to increased wealth....
  Yet Solidarity is not collectivist! As we read above, justice is about the individual person; individuals have God-given natural rights, not societies or governments. In the end Solidarity is an explicit rejection of such Liberal concepts such as Communism and Libertarianism - both collectivism and material individualism are rejected as false and, thus, unjust.

  Another key element of a just society is Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle 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 co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

  Or as the OED states,

"The principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate, local level."

   More simply, 'as local and personal as possible'. There are many reasons for thus ranging from simple efficiency (how can a distant administrator have a clearer idea?) and moral (rights are individual, not collective, so avoid the collective). Again, this is a direct rejection of collectivism and individualism; the collective is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when the collective is the only answer.

  The next core element is Private Property. The Catechism tells us that,

"In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men."

  Or, 'men have a right to private property'. Indeed, private property is an element of dignity and freedom and part of Solidarity. But the Catechism also warns us,

"The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
  In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. "

  Another reminder that we are part of a family and that we owe all good to God and, thus, we owe solidarity to our neighbors. Note as well that yet again there is an explicit rejection of collectivism ('the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise') and individualism (' legitimate goods he... ... owns not... exclusive to himself but common to others...'). Indeed, we are morally obligated to make our property fruitful because fruitfulness helps others. If we are 'middlemen' then we must be as efficient as possible so that we do not waste what could be used charitably. The Catechism later states,

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good"

Tied with the obligation to respect the right to private property this means that governments have the right to regulate, say, workplace safety, waste disposal and pollution, etc. to ensure the common good. So while private property is a right, it is not an absolute right. Indeed,

"Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

  Note how this states that waste, excessive expense, and willfully damaging your own property is immoral.  Also, the inescapable conclusion is that to be moral we must reject not just collectivism and individualism but also Communism/Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism. Communism rejects the idea of private property, denying people freedom, security, and the option for their own justice. Socialism rejects subsidiarity and demands central planning, dehumanizing the person. Laissez-faire Capitalism rejects Solidarity and focuses on profits instead of people. The inherent collectivism of Communism and Socialism (which rejects individual rights and justice) is matched by the inherent individualism of Capitalism (which rejects legitimate authority and the common good. Thus, Edan embraces Distributism, which is no more than the consolidation of Catholic social justice.

  

  Here are the core ideas of Edan:

1) All citizens have a right to private property, a right to just compensation for their goods and services, and a right to enter into contracts, including employment contracts, of their own free will

2) Ownership of private property and work are both inherently good for the individual and for society. 'Work' includes physical, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual work.

3) The government has the authority to regulate private property and business for the common good.

4) Decisions should be made as far 'down' the hierarchy of authority as possible.

5) Co-operatives and guilds are preferred to unions and corporations. 

6) Government is for leadership, not charity.

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.

The Distributist Review On Economics

The Distributist Review has the start of an excellent series on economics and Catholic social teaching which can be found here.

Another Good Article from the Distributist Review

This article discusses a point central to Edanian thought - economics is about people, not money.

Recommened Reading on Economics and Catholicism.

The Ministry of Information highly recommends the discussion of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI's most recent encyclical found here.

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

An Article worth Reading

Please visit the excellent Distributist Review and their discussion of an article about usury that is not yet online.

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!