Like factories, power plants, and mines, who would live in those environments? Especially for stuff that has a strict code of conduct, since I'm not sure how regular teaching is supposed to work and that's for high school math instead of rocket science.

I understand that production is supposed to be people having resources and property, but what about services? Like theme parks or education? I guess monetary theory could handle theme parks but what would prevent colleges from costing so much money?

Greetings!

I'm fairly new to the concept of distributism but consider myself a traditionalist so I'm interested in Chesterton and, in turn, distributism. I acknowledge this might come across as a silly question but how does buying land look like in distributism? If the point is to equitably distribute the land, wouldn't buying land necessarily impede on that idea?
Also, if there are some quality sources I can take a look at on the topic of distributism, I would appreciate it if someone could link it below.

Thank you all in advance!

And president FDR in general, I’m asking as a liberal.

Capitalism has been the dominant economic system for hundreds of years, and it has brought us great prosperity and wealth. Why would we want to change that?

https://christiandale.no/blog/the-wisdom-of-wealth-on-distributism

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act is a bill currently being debated in the U.S.A. that would (among other things) amend the National Labor Relations Act to define an employee as follows:

SEC. 101. Definitions.

(b) Employee.—Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—

“(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;

“(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and

“(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”.

According to Reuters

The law would, among other measures, reclassify many independent contractors as employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, though not for wage laws and benefits.

I am trying to be neutral and I encourage people to read both sides of the argument.

Thoughts?

By legally mandating ESOPs? Or maybe just encouraging ESOPs? Or do you want to convert all business corporations today to worker co-operatives? And how would you do that?

A youtuber by the name of Lavader has been doing a political ideology knock out game on his community posts and it is down to the final 2, Distributism vs Pinochetism. Thought I would share in case anyone wants to vote. (Not sure if this breaks R1/R6 but the cause is too important not to try.)

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxlZab3OjW2kK68-3-OQRanMlHsx_fzmq1

How would you write a Distributist Constitution? What amendments, rights and promises would you make within it?

While the term "distributism" is mostly associated with Catholic Social Teachings its principles, a wide distribution of productive assets and protection of the yeoman-family, has been an integral part of American liberalism since the revolution.

I think I would call it "consistent Jeffersonianism," but you could also call it liberal conservative distributism. I support liberal philosophy and take it to its logical conclusion. I support center right social values and religious freedom too, but I'm shorn of the more uber-Christian proselytization that occupies many distributist spaces.

Wondering if there's any more like me out there?

I see it online sometimes, but there is little information on it aside from a political satire website.

If larger businesses are broken down into more local parts, what would happen to businesses that need to be huge? I understand they would usually be broken down into a co-operative, but would that even be profitable for the individual parts? Furthermore, would the airlines be named entirely locally due to their inability to expand further?

Thanks in advance.

If all of the productive assets are owned widely, then how will the workers decide to run the business? What if they disagree over different questions? What if the workers simply aren't even skilled enough to manage a business, then what? The only way this could work is through some sort of democratic system, but that still doesn't fix any of the aforementioned issues.

https://distributistreview.com/archive/distributism-and-taxation

Do you agree with it? And would you apply it to all businesses, considering that, as many here have admitted, certain large-scale businesses are necessary (pharmaceuticals, airlines, etc.)?

I'd been asking a lot about big business lately because while I agree with Distributism on 99% of things, one of the things that I don't love is its relation to large businesses. I do want more small firms, but the capitalist in me understands its good for a healthy economy to have them, so I think it's fine for (very) large companies like Microsoft to exist granted they are worker owned in some way and don't buy up other businesses or violate anti-trust laws. To my understanding Distrubutists only tolerate large businesses if they have to be large to exist (like an airline). Was curious what Distrubutists think about this, thank you.

One thing I disagree with Distributism on (I think) is big business. If one were to have an employee-owned business that didn't buyout other companies, how would it be decided when it's broken up? Would it need to reach a certain size, and/or would it be because the company started engaging in too many actives outside of its core business? (like engaging in every industry like Samsung). Or how does that work? Thank you.

I dedicate this post to distributist sympathisers who do not believe in Christianity. Personally, I would call myself a "cultural Christian", as I'm an agnostic, but I still appreciate this religion's contribution to the society and its values.

However, it's not necessary to be a Christian to support the distributist economic model. While it was heavily influenced by Christian, including Catholic thinkers and concepts, it can be secularised. You can appreciate focus on local communities, self-sufficiency and a healthy degree of economic freedom without believing in Judeo-Christian God.

Hello!

I'm a centre-left distributist and an agrarian. I support such an economic model, because it enables self-sufficiency, homesteading, a healthy degree of personal autonomy and tackles the excesses of capitalism while avoiding totalitarian communism.

I would like to focus on the issue of self-reliance. If we had a distributist system with small private property and cooperatives, local communities would be less dependent on other lands and countries. As we know, centralised socialism/communism is inefficient due to bureaucracy. On the other hand, laissez-faire capitalism prioritises the financial desires of the rich, which often involves offshoring, even for a price of longer supply chains.

Under the distributist framework, local farmer cooperatives would thrive. They would provide their respective communities with high-quality food and tackle unemployment. It would be possible to make agriculture respected again and young people would be attracted to take such an occupation instead of precarious jobs or corporate careers with the rat race and high levels of stress.

Furthermore, this system could facilitate reindustrialisation. Instead of moving factories to poor countries, local communities could set up industrial cooperatives, which would produce necessary items: cars, TV, PCs, clothes, furniture etc.

Thanks to it, we would enjoy a myriad of thriving local economies with lower inequality and unemployment rates instead of giant capitalist corporations, exploitation, a lack of people's participation in the economy, inequality and long supply chains, sensitive to adversities (such as epidemics and lockdown, as COVID showed us).

What would a distributist do in local office? What actual tangible thing could a city council member do? Cities the size of Sarasota or the like, not Atlanta or San Francisco. Most folks live in those size towns, so what would a distributist do there?

I have (by years) study Distributism, and the method of society in this holy way.

However, I am skeptical about the issue of money and its existence. Could someone informed answer whether money would be good or necessary in a distributist society?

What makes Distributism good and better than the alternatives?

What are the major strengths of Distributism?

I am interested in your opinions!

For me, it is the focus on family&community, and widespread ownership of capital.

Distributism also seems to be flexibile in terms of ownership of capital, e.g. worker-owned co-ops are preferred but sometimes private firms are allowed as long as they don't grow too big and provide good working conditions. At least this is my impression of Distributism.