It pains me somewhat to break ranks here, but I am not the biggest fan of distributism precisely because it tries to 'un-serf the serfs.' Too many men making their own decisions has always been fertile soil for republicanism. I like corporatism and I believe, obviously, in the stability and indissolubility of the family; however, I believe that most men in society ought to be beholden to a superior who has the material power to reinforce his decisions, that society needs more servants and less 'askers-of-questions.' Men need to be born with prejudices supplied by an establishment that is greater than the scope of their material aspirations. How much greater, you ask ? Enough, and no more.
Otherwise we get the autonomous individual, the self-seeker, the 'alternative' man who 'does his own thing' and tries too hard to 'change his stars.' Magnanimity is a blessing, but personal ambition and self-regard is a curse upon the tranquility of an otherwise solid moral and social order. Too many men owning property and not being beholden to a lord or master of some kind creates this phenomenon, which always leads to friction and the heat of tumultuous events.

'I own property, why does this man see it fit to dictate to me ? Just because he has a lofty title and his father's great great grandfather was given a picture on a shield from the Duke of whereabouts ? Nonsense -- I am a man, and a Catholic, and a property-owner, and I will stand up for my rights against this pretentious aristocrat !'

I see too much philo-bourgeoisism in the distributist system to call myself a distributist. The last thing any society desiring survival needs is a teeming middle class with a mischievous sense of entitlement. I know how obnoxiously self-important these people are; being from the suburbs of a large metropolitan area, almost everybody I know is one of them.

See my quotation above. Now I will alter the words a little bit, and tell me how the presented social dynamic is qualitatively different in the new quote.

'I have my own house and family; why does this man see it fit to dictate to me ? Just because he has the lofty title of 'father' and had oil put on his head by some Bishop I have never met and who does not know my personal circuмstances and situation ? Nonsense -- I am a man, and an American, and a Christian, and I will not be told that I am some horrible person who cannot receive communion because some outdated Italian dictator with nice clothes and a fish-shaped hat doesn't like that I divorced my first wife ! I have universal human rights and am entitled to some respect !'


God is not a respecter of persons; the Church is not a respecter of persons; the social order and the monarchy should not be a respecter of persons. Respecting persons a priori is ridiculous. One respects authority because it was invested by God through his ministers appointed by Divine Providence. One respects sacred persons, too, such as the dignity of the royal person and His Holiness and so forth, but only because of the dignity given to them by the authority the possess. Distributism, on the other hand, seems to place too much emphasis on decentralised power and on widespread property ownership. Now, I am strongly in favour of widespread property ownership by men of authority and by sacred feudal rights and oaths and relationships binding men hierarchically to certain duties.
But too many men with power and social 'respect' qua 'property-owners' seems like it would create a culture of individuals with rights, rather than one of men with duties. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Catholicmonarchists/message/4441