The long-awaited quinquel in our Ballad of Distributism.

Would Distributism destroy freedom?

It’s a sensible fear. At least, it seems to be the bedrock defense of my Capitalist friends. Even if they grant that Capitalism has these odd historical tendencies towards sweatshops, wage slaves, and a few billionaires, they think they hold a Trump. The free market may not be particularly humane, or sustainable, or sane, but they’re still proud to be a Capitalist, ’cause at least they know they’re free.

Which is precisely what I dispute. Capitalism erodes and attacks freedom with increasing intensity as it proceeds down the economic ladder. I fight Capitalism to try to save my freedom.

Note I didn’t say security, shelter, food, clothing—I think a Distributist society beats Capitalism there, too, but my focus here is freedom. Socialists make a living by 1) pointing out that Capitalism robs many these goods and then 2) promising better times…with a catch. Most Utopias I’ve seen, from Plato to St. Thomas More’s original to Rousseau to Looking Backward to the musings of my Socialist friends, rest on a variation of a simple equation.

Give us all your freedom, and we’ll solve all your problems. We’ll even give you free kites.

Naturally, that curdles the blood of any right-thinking Capitalist. If only they’d believe it curdles mine too.

On the farm, I had a friend who frequently admired Socialist Sweden. There, the citizens were fed, clothed, and sheltered, without exception. What could I answer to that? Nothing…except that you could say the same for our chickens. Yes, we were kind to the poultry, but certain career choices loomed in their future and we didn’t plan to consult them.

Distributists don’t want Utopia. They want freedom. Alas, Capitalists say they same thing. So the question is, what’s freedom?

The age-old question: does freedom mean do whatever you can or do good? Two separate ideas. How about two words? Might and right.

I’m a grown man. I’m bigger than my daughter. I have the ability to make a fist and bash her face in. I don’t have the right, but I do have the might.

Why the universe was set up in this fashion is a thory question. God gave us the might to do what isn’t our right. The mysteries of evil, pain, and even the existence of reality television are all bound up in this question of freedom. Fortunately, we don’t have to solve the mystery to work out a few rules.

There’s a law against bashing in my daughter’s face. We could call it a “limiting of freedom”, but that muddles might and right. The law limits my might, but it doesn’t touch my rights because I never had a right to bash in her face in the first place. And it protects my daughter’s right to a lovely little unbashed face.

If I abuse my might, the State will use its might to punish me, hoping this will protect others’ rights in the future. That’s the basic function of the State (well, after NASA)— to use force to dissuade the abuse of might and to punish injustice when it occurs.

One definition of injustice I like is “evil that can be prevented by force.” As opposed to immorality. If I take a sudden hatred to, say, Woody Allen, and lie awake at night composing sonnets to his destruction, the State, with a sad shake of its head, must admit it can’t stop me from thinking nasty things. Immoral, not unjust. But suppose I seize a concrete block and attempt to give Allen’s head a new foundation. Now the State is in its element. It can prevent me. Hopefully, it will.

If Capitalism only promoted immorality, then we could shout, pray, and blog ourselves to death, but we couldn’t make laws against it. We could only hope that our CEO friends and their minions would all experience a change of heart.

But Capitalism thrives on injustice, on the abuse of economic might. That injustice should stop. Making laws to prevent injustice isn’t Socialism, it isn’t swelling Federal power, it’s simply being a State. If you don’t like States, go build a raft.

If the “free market” meant “unlimited might”, if it were really wrong for the government ever to “control the market,” we couldn’t prosecute Enron.

In reality, Capitalists want the government to control the market in plenty of ways. If I filched Gates’ wallet and gave the money to his last wave of layoffs, he’d be highly annoyed if the laissez-faire judge hesitated to interfere on the grounds that it would be “controlling the market.”

Bottom line: Capitalists think certain economic actions are rights and want them protected by law. Forbid any of those “rights,” and you’re “swelling Federal power” and “controlling the market” (in a bad way). Distributists think certain other economic actions are rights and want them protected by law. The worldviews have their similarities, but, sadly, also their divergences. The argument isn’t over which side wants to “control the market” or be “more free,” but over which rights are real. Neither side can pull the Freedom Trump.

Instead, we’ve got to thrash out what our rights are. And if might is being abused, we must take legal action.

How? Well, there was that Jefferson suggestion about taxation. Then there’s the nifty medieval plan: guilds. Tradesmen get together and make rules for themselves. Break the rule, have a chat in court.

Ah! There I go again, more government intervention! But as we’ll see next time, there’s a slight difference between the government enforcing rules it makes and the government enforcing rules you make. Honest. Ask any bureaucrat.