by Paul Kolker
Four grown men, myself included, all live in the same house, and for a period of time we had an ant problem. Ants flowed into the house in what seemed like an endless stream and would crawl all over the dishes near our kitchen sink. We would kill them as best we could, but the ants would still return. The situation became so dire that we even went so far as to begin contemplating calling an exterminator. After this happened often enough, a thought crystallized in our minds: we realized we needed to clean the dishes faster, because it was the dirty dishes that were attracting the ants. We had to find the source of the problem and not simply assault the symptoms.
Distributists all too often overlook the dirty dishes in their assault on the ants of our day. They complain of our current capitalist system and of the wealthy who benefit from it, asserting all the while the dubious notion that a capitalist system will always end in our current mess. But these are merely the ants. Free enterprise is not the source of the problem—government intervention and privileges are. As long as there is power lying around the “ants” of any economic system will seek to exploit it to their own benefit—and the dishes of our day are all too willing to oblige.
Taking a moment to examine the nature of government throws light on the true character of the problem that confronts us. Government is the only entity given a monopoly on force. One cannot opt out of a law or regulation without a hefty fine or a prison sentence. As such, it should be used with restraint, and only with the utmost care. This fact alone explains the many decisions made by our nation’s founders: federalism, separation of powers, a bicameral legislature. All of these ideas were instituted as checks on power, on force, because our founders knew only too well the effects of a tyrannical, distant, totalitarian authority. They understood well this maxim of Lord Acton: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Compare this to the free market. Businesses, unlike government, cannot force anyone to buy anything. If Joe Citizen does not like what a company has to offer, he will take his business elsewhere. He can opt out without fear of reprisal, because the company cannot throw him in jail for not purchasing its product. What we see with businesses is quite the contrary of government: businesses depend at a foundational level on sales of either a good or a service, and sales depend on demand, which is an essential expression of the freedom of an individual. If there is not a demand for its product, the business goes under. The only way a business can avoid this essential law of commerce is to manipulate government to its own ends, as we have seen in recent years, where government has bailed out its friends at the expense of the taxpayer.
Now distributists will say that money eventually coerces those in power. But is it not rather that power attracts money? What if, like the dishes in the kitchen, we removed the power? What would happen to these businesses? If businesses were unable to receive a bailout from Washington (i.e., “the hard-working taxpayer”), they would have to compete to retain their power. They would be forced to perform and actually serve the needs of others. The free market would keep them in line and prevent the tyranny of corporations against which so many Occupy protestors vent their rage.
But we must also turn our scrutiny to distributism itself, for under distributism the same abuses of power would eventually result. Considering that Belloc and other distributists propose a “differential tax” as a means of enacting their distributist society, they set themselves up for the same failure they claim (wrongly) to be the “inevitable result of a capitalist system.” The essential problem again is the necessity to use government to execute the distributist system, and what is to prevent those in government from profiting from this system by deciding what level of wealth is necessary? Or by granting themselves or their friends and cronies an exemption? With this kind of power in government, we would soon see the erosion of even the most fundamental distributist ideals. Have we really learned nothing in the last century about the problems of giving too much power to government?
The most ideal system, therefore, will be one in which local governments take care of local problems, as the Catholic principle of subsidiarity encourages—and where outside of the basic functions of government, free citizens are left to deal freely with each other, provided they actually have to compete. Competition will force companies to make good decisions (for their customers, employees, investors, and selves) or risk losing to a company that out-performs them in any or each of those areas.
The problem is not the free market. The problem is not even those who seemingly have the biggest share of the market. The problem is the build-up of big government and its unholy marriage with big business—that is to say, of dirty dishes and of the ants that take advantage of them. There is no mechanism in a free market that inevitably leads to tyranny. The buildup of power eventually attracts the tyrannical. What is necessary, then, is for a free people to keep a more vigilant watch over their government. If we had a truly limited government, and if our civil “servants” actually upheld their oaths to protect the Constitution, the behemoth of big government and big business would fall, leaving more people to own more property (at least the ones with enough ambition and responsibility)—the goal all distributists claim to desire.
Paul Kolker teaches Calculus and Algebra at Jesuit College Preparatory School in Dallas, Texas. He is also a regular performer at the Dallas Comedy House and takes his improv comedy on the road to youth groups/conferences throughout DFW.
Follow the Center for Morality in Public Life on Facebook and Twitter.
9 Responses to Of Ants & Men: The Real Problem Distributists Overlook
Leave a Reply
Paul: I am not sure that it is accurate to attribute to the Distributist position that “They complain of our current capitalist system and of the wealthy who benefit from it, asserting all the while the dubious notion that a capitalist system will always end in our current mess.” That, to me, sounds much closer to the OWS position than it does, say, Chesterton and Belloc. Indeed, one of THE core complaints of Chesteron and Belloc was precisely what you discussed: the collusion between Big Government and Big Business. Outside of the example of the “differential tax” of Belloc (which, in one part, was a multi-level tax system with a top bracket of 3% of income and a bottom bracket of 0.5%; this is often missed in the distributist argument, that the first quality of a system of taxation is how minimal it be), I’m not sure you didn’t just set up a straw man position of the distributists. Because other than that, I find your ants/plates analogy very helpful.
Thanks for the post. I enjoyed reading it. The need to use government to execute the distributist system is not a problem for distributism or any other economic system. By necessity the government must execute whatever economic system a country chooses to pursue. Even a free market system must be protected and executed by politicians who are free market capitalists. I also believe that there is a mechanism in the free market that inevitably leads to tyranny. It is a mechanism that exists in every form of government, and that mechanism is greed. One difference between capitalism and distributism is that capitalism explicitly rewards greed while distributism attempts to curb it.
Alberto, I appreciate your points, and I’m glad you enjoyed the analogy.
I also just want to say that I did not intend to set up a straw man. I wrote this directly in response to some of the posts from late last year on the topic of “What’s wrong with Capitalism” and the other one that was entitled “Victims of Mammon,” both of which decried capitalism/liberalism (though I would prefer the term “free enterprise”) and hinted at distributism as a solution. So my response might be too narrow, in that it is aimed at what they presented.
I did do some outside research on distributism, and what I saw is that the only method the distributists had for enacting their policies was the differential tax. They even mention one for sales, such that the poor, if he were buying something, would be charged a smaller tax than the rich man selling it; but those taxes would be reversed if the scenario were the opposite. Again, I can only see this leading to a stifling of commerce and to the potential for government abuse of these taxes by either favoring some (cronyism) or using all of that money to build up big government again. I would welcome your thoughts on the matter.
I also think that the distributist position forgets that human nature does not change simply because one has sworn an oath of office. And if we give those people anything resembling absolute power, the freedoms that would have existed even in a distributist system would quickly dissolve.
But again, thanks for your thoughts, and I’m glad you enjoyed my analogy.
Also, the author of the following article seems to be further evidence for my statement that “[Distributists] complain of our current capitalist system and of the wealthy who benefit from it, asserting all the while the dubious notion that a capitalist system will always end in our current mess.”
In the following article, he claims that neither Keynes nor Hayek provide a way out, all the while treating only a straw-man version of Hayek. Indeed, most of what the author of this article calls for are the exact same things a disciple of Hayek would call for. That’s why I focused so much on a defense of the free market, because, in an attempt to overcome the commercialism and materialism of our day, so many distributists seem to misunderstand the true nature of free enterprise.
http://distributistreview.com/mag/2012/02/state-capitalism/
I think that the article is oversimplifying a distributist perspective on economics. Distributism is not solely focused on an economy dependent upon government intervention, nor is it solely focused on an economy without government intervention. Distributism asks for regulations where they are necessary, and no regulations where they are not necessary. As John Medaille says in his book “Towards a Truly Free Market,”
“Economics, or more properly, political economy, cannot be a proper science unless it is a humane science; to be a humane science it must embody some notion of justice, and particularly of distributive justice. Indeed, as a practical matter as well as a theoretical one, there can be no balance between supply and demand without distributive justice; the moral question and the economic question are, in reality, one question. Economic equilibrium cannot be divorced from economic equity, and the attempt to do so will lose both equity and equilibrium; the economy will be unable to balance itself, and so will either fall to ruin, or to ruinous government attempts to redress the balance.”
I know that the above paragraph is ripe with unsubstantiated claims, but one will just have to read the book to find out how Medaille goes on to explain himself. My main point is that Distributism does not “overlook the dirty dishes,” nor does it suggest to set up a socialist nanny state, but it also recognizes that leaving the markets completely to themselves results in grave injustices and bad economic practices. And we only have history to prove this point.
This must be the most ahistorical crap I’ve ever read:
“Businesses, unlike government, cannot force anyone to buy anything.”
Sure, cause businesses would never pay their employees in scrip. And there would never be monopolies on needed goods. And…
Seriously, though: don’t you people ever pay attention to the world around you?
This article does seem to given unmerited trust in ‘competition’ to achieve justice. It also seems to overlook that the government, particularly in a Republic, are the citizens, through their elected representatives. The government need not be an oligarchy with it’s interests, opposed to and competing with the governed.
Bailouts are not necessarily corruption; couldn’t they be a case of citizens (most of whom are consumers and employees) agreeing that they have a stake or interest in this producer/employer? The problem with ‘competition’ in a global economy is that the ‘re-adjustments’ of a Darwinian marketplace often displace entire communities, if not peoples, and destroy the common-wealth. The global does, and by nature always will, move at the pace of abstraction and generality that often crushes the individual and the family unless they are protected by law, custom, and subsidiary associations.
Are there never any situations in which law is needed to protect the possibility of private property for the many, and to protect the possibility of most, if not all, being free? Distributists and laissez-faireans seem to agree that there are; distributists simply argue that competition does not in itself create justice, and that private interests can occasionally “out-compete”, in terms of power, the common good.
The article also overlooks the Catholic tradition (not mere belief, but tried-and-true practice) of checking and balancing the State with the Church. The ability of the common people to boycott the State through excommunication, for example, would be a very useful ability today. Distributism acknowledges the indispensability of God’s revelation in government. “Free-marketers” seem to argue a priori that government cannot rely on God.
Miles and Joshua, would you please define “justice”? And Miles, would you especially please define “distributive justice”? Any proper discussion requires a definition of the terms involved, and this would help me greatly in knowing how to respond to your thoughts.
And Eli, if I can wade through the anger and sarcasm for a minute, I will simply say that the problems you mentioned would be solved by an increase in competition. So your points do not override the thrust of my article. They actually provide more support for it.
I would love to be able to comment further on distributivism; while I fear that its proponents have not be clear enough about how to implement it, it seems like an intriguing proposal at least worth discussing, even if it doesn’t answer all our question. Unfortunately the EP editors have started randomly censoring my comments without explanation so I am afraid that any substantive comment here will be edited out.