Distributism is Built for Failure

Distributism is a recently resurgent form of social and political thought that attempts to create a free society ordered in a specific way through state intervention. This sounds like a paradox, because it is one. Distributists do not like to believe that they are proponents of larger forms of government, however their policies almost inevitably create big government. They want production to be distributed, and are willing to use aggressive antitrust to do so. They believe that because of the many benefits of more people producing, antitrust, and market control is justified. Although the end goal towards which they regulate is beautiful, they fail to consider the practical implications of such paternalistic action. Distributists want to maximize human freedom and flourishing yet their economic ideas fundamentally disrupt both of those things. Flourishing is disrupted by arbitrarily destroying the industries of massive scale that enable material well-being. They damage freedom by replacing freedom of self-organization with state-created and enforced rules that limit creativity to a certain subset of it.

The distributists are interested in a clear problem: in most capitalistic and socialistic societies, most normal people do not own very much and thus become dependent on the state and vulnerable to abuse of industry. They argue that a large and centralized state creates people who are dependent. They also argue that an economy full of massive companies grows a similar form of dependence. This inability to be responsible for oneself and resilient to shocks of policy or the market creates people who are neither moral nor capable. Distributists have a clear and beautiful vision of the world, a world full of small farmers, collective workshops, and micro-entrepreneurs. They embrace the aesthetic of medieval Europe and hope to regain the communal life that once flourished there while also receiving more modern levels of resources. They want a world with all the good things of every time simultaneously. This is possible, but the creators of the movement being philosophers rather than economists becomes painfully clear when the practical ramifications of their strategies are considered. While increasing community and local resilience while also increasing business capacity is a good goal, they go about it in a methodologically corrupt way.…