Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 61st Edition. Illiberal Democracy. . . coming soon to a republic near you and boosting the birth rate.

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 61st Edition. Illiber...:   

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 61st Edition. Illiberal Democracy. . . coming soon to a republic near you and boosting the birth rate.

 

"Mothers, fight for your children". World War Two German posters.  Prior to the war you can find quite a few posers of fawning mothers with babies, including the ever popular large breasted young woman breastfeeding babies.  The Nazi Party was freakishly pro natalist, even though the country was very densely populated.  While I can't find it, a Nazi informational cartoon even exists lamenting a woman's increasing first childbirth age, taking it back to a point at which it was in the early teens.

There’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orban. He’s fantastic…He’s a non-controversial figure because he says, ‘This is the way it’s going to be,’ and that’s the end of it. Right? He’s the boss. No, he’s a great leader.

Donald Trump on Viktor Orbán, yesterday.

What the crap? 

Right wing fawning over Viktor Orbán is really getting over the top.  Why?

Well, I know why, it's because of his philosophy of "Illiberal Democracy", which will be coming soon to a large North American republic near you.

And while you are enjoying being told how exactly to think, you can get back to work on birthin' dem babies.

Eh?

Ah yes, has any notices that there's growing far right obsession on increasing the birth rate.  It's one thing to support families, but that's not what I mean.  If you listen carefully, there's suddenly a genuine "we need more babies" movement going on in the far right.

This has long been the case in Russia, which has crashing demographics, so it probably makes sense.  If they don't arrest this trend, irrespective of how much Vlad Putin expands the borders of the country, sooner or later China is going to help itself to a large portion of Siberia.  So its been going on there for a while, but appears to be picking up.

Vlad delivered a message on this in Russia yesterday, for International Women's Day, something that actually isn't about babies.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Dear women,

From the bottom of my heart, I wish you all the best on International Women’s Day.

We always look forward to this wonderful spring day with pleasure and excitement, preparing for it well in advance. Today, in every home and every family, Russians are expressing their most tender and loving wishes for their mothers, wives, daughters, grandmothers and girlfriends.

Dear women, you certainly have the power to improve this world with your beauty, wisdom and generosity, but above all, thanks to the greatest gift that nature has endowed you with – the bearing of children. Motherhood is a glorious mission for women. A difficult and critically important mission, but also a source of so much joy and happiness.

Family remains the most important thing for any woman, no matter what career path she chooses or what professional heights she attains. Her family, relatives, friends, her tireless concern for her children, their health and education, teaching them what is right and making sure they grow up to be decent and successful people is what matters most.

This year is dedicated to the family in Russia. The meaning, the essence of the family is primarily about the continuation of life, the continuation of the lineage, of the story of each family and our entire country. The family is the bond that has ensured continuity from generation to generation, and consideration and respect for women and motherhood are an integral part of our traditions.

The family, its interests and needs are in the spotlight and an absolute priority in Russia today. We will certainly do everything we can to ensure that families with children, including large and young families, young mothers, feel supported and assisted by the state.

I would like to specifically address the women who are serving in the special military operation now, carrying out combat missions, as well as to others who are now separated from their family members, waiting for our heroes to come home, inspiring them with their love, cheer and support, worrying about every soldier, helping them on the front line, in hospitals, and in numerous volunteer organisations. Again and again, you prove that a woman’s heart is truly an irresistible force, providing an example of perseverance and confidence that good and truth are on our side.

Dear women!

You take on extremely difficult challenges, achieving success and impressive results in a variety of fields. We, men, often feel amazed at your ability to get things done quickly and efficiently, yet thoroughly, seeing to every detail. You handle an endless succession of problems and burdens without losing your charm and allure. It is impossible not to admire you.

I would like to wish you genuine mutual understanding with those you hold dear, as many truly happy moments in your lives as possible, and success in everything that is important to you.

All the best to you. Happy International Women’s Day!

Tsar Vlad has spoken.  Get to work on those babies.

Tim Scott, who recently sold his dignity to fawn over Don Trump, said a line like this just the other day in an interview where it wasn't subtle.  It doesn't seem to have been picked up in the press, which doesn't seem to have picked up on this at all, but he said something like "we need more babies".  I can't, however, recall the context.

This has really started to appear now that the topic of IVF has come up.  I'm a Catholic, and frankly I fully agree with the Church's position that IVF is immoral, in part because it creates people to be wasted.  That this has turned into a controversy, however, was predictable.  Interestingly, however, some of the language that now appears is along these lines. Republicans are declaring that they're in support of IVF as we need more babies.

This showed up a bit in some odd way in the State of the Union address rebuttal by Sen. Katie Britt.  Frankly, State of the Union addresses have become almost completely pointless since the introduction of television for the most part.  Joe Biden's was a bit of an exception, and there are others, but usually the President declares the State of the Union to be great, hands out kittens, and leaves.  In the rebuttal, the opposing party comes in and declares puppies to be great, but kittens to be a menace.

This year Sen. Britt, a youngish Alabaman Senator, delivered the rebuttal from her kitchen. Some thought the scene of a woman delivering a message from a kitchen to be an ironic accident.  

I doubt it.

I think the message was intentional.  Women's primary duties are in the kitchen. . . and maybe the bedroom.

Her speech

Good evening, America. My name is Katie Britt, and I have the honor of serving the people of the great state of Alabama in the United States Senate. However, that’s not the job that matters most. I am a proud wife and mom of two school age kids. My daughter Bennett and my son Ridgeway are why I ran for the Senate.

I’m worried about their future and the future of children in every corner of our nation, and that’s why I invited you into our home tonight. Like so many families across America, my husband Wesley and I just watched President Biden’s State of the Union address from our living room. And what we saw was the performance of a permanent politician who has actually been in office for longer than I’ve been alive.

One thing was quite clear, though. President Biden just doesn’t get it. He’s out of touch. Under his administration, families are worse off, our communities are less safe, and our country is less secure. I just wish he understood what real families are facing around kitchen tables just like this one. You know, this is where our family has tough conversations.

It’s where we make hard decisions. It’s where we share the good, the bad, and the ugly of our days. It’s where we laugh together, and it’s where we hold each other’s hands and pray for God’s guidance. And many nights, to be honest, it’s where Wesley and I worry. I know we’re not alone. And so tonight, the American family needs to have a tough conversation, because the truth is we’re all worried about the future of our nation.

The country we know and love seems to be slipping away, and it feels like the next generation will have fewer opportunities and less freedoms than we did. I worry my own children may not even get a shot at living their American dreams. My American dream allowed me, the daughter of two small business owners from rural Enterprise, Alabama, to be elected to the United States Senate at the age of 40. Growing up sweeping the floor at my dad’s hardware store and cleaning the bathroom at my mom’s dance studio, I never could have imagined what my story would entail.

To think about what the American Dream can do across just one generation in just one lifetime, it’s truly breathtaking. But right now, the American dream has turned into a nightmare for so many families. The true unvarnished state of our union begins and ends with this. Our families are hurting. Our country can do better.

And you don’t have to look any further than the crisis at our southern border to see it. President Biden inherited the most secure border of all time. But minutes after taking office, he suspended all deportations, he halted construction of the border wall, and he announced a plan to give amnesty to millions.

We know that President Biden didn’t just create this border crisis. He invited it with 94 executive actions in his first 100 days. When I took office, I took a different approach. I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas. That’s where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped.

The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoebox of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end. We wouldn’t be ok with this happening in a third world country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.

This crisis is despicable, and the truth is it is almost entirely preventable. From fentanyl poisonings to horrific murders, there are empty chairs tonight at kitchen tables just like this one because of President Biden’s senseless border policies. Just think about Laken Riley. In my neighboring state of Georgia, this beautiful 22 year old nursing student went out on a jog one morning, but she never got the opportunity to return home.

She was brutally murdered by one of the millions of illegal border crossers President Biden chose to release into our homeland. Y’all, as a mom, I can’t quit thinking about this. I mean, this could have been my daughter. This could have been yours. And tonight, President Biden finally said her name, but he refused to take responsibility for his own actions.

Mr. president, enough is enough. Innocent Americans are dying, and you only have yourself to blame. Fulfill your oath of office, reverse your policies, end this crisis, and stop the suffering. Sadly, we know that President Biden’s failures don’t stop there. His reckless spending dug our economy into a hole and sent the cost of living through the roof.

We have the worst inflation in 40 years and the highest credit card debt in our nation’s history. Let that sink in. Hard working families are struggling to make ends meet today. And with soaring mortgage rates and sky high childcare costs, they’re also struggling to how to plan for tomorrow. The American people are scraping by while President Biden proudly proclaims that Bidenomics is working.

Goodness, y’all. Bless his heart. We know better. I’ll never forget stopping at a gas station in Chilton County one evening. The gentleman working the counter told me that after retiring he had to pick up a job in his 70s so that he didn’t have to choose between going hungry or going without his medication.

He said I did everything right. I did everything I was told to do. I worked hard. I saved. I was responsible. He’s not alone. I hear similar concerns from fellow parents, whether I am walking with my friends or whether I’m at my kid’s games. But let’s be honest, it’s been a minute since Joe Biden pumped gas, ran a carpool, or even pushed a grocery cart.

Meanwhile, the rest of us see our dollar, and we know it doesn’t go as far. We see it every day. And despite what he tells you, our communities are not safer. For years, the left has coddled criminals and defunded the police, all while letting repeat offenders walk free. The result is tragic but foreseeable.

From our small towns to America’s most iconic city streets, life is getting more and more dangerous. And unfortunately, President Biden’s weakness isn’t just hurting families here at home. He is making us a punchline on the world stage. Look, where I’m from, your word is your bond. But for three years, the president has demonstrated that America’s word doesn’t mean what it used to. From abandoning our allies in his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan to desperately pushing another dangerous deal with Iran, President Biden has failed.

We’ve become a nation in retreat. And the enemies of freedom, they see an opportunity. Putin’s brutal aggression in Europe has put our allies on the brink. Iran’s terrorist proxies have slaughtered Israeli Jews and American citizens. They’ve targeted commercial shipping and they’ve attacked our troops nearly 200 times since October, killing three US soldiers and two Navy Seals. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party is undercutting America’s workers. China is buying up our farmland, spying on our military installations and spreading propaganda through the likes of TikTok. You see, the CCP knows that if it conquers the minds of our next generation, it conquers America.

And what does President Biden do? Well, he bans TikTok for government employees, but creates an account for his own campaign. Y’all, you can’t make this stuff up. Look, we all recall when presidents faced national security threats with strength and resolve; that seems like ancient history. Right now, our commander in chief is not in command.

The free world deserves better than a dithering and diminished leader. America deserves leaders who recognize that secure borders, stable prices, safe streets, and a strong defense are actually the cornerstones of a great nation. Just ask yourself, are you better off now than you were three years ago? There’s no doubt we’re at a crossroads and it doesn’t have to be this way.

We all feel it. But here’s the good news. We the people are still in the driver’s seat. We get to decide whether our future will grow brighter or whether we’ll settle for an America in decline. Well, I know which choice our children deserve and I know the choice the Republican Party is fighting for. We are the party of hard working parents and families and we want to give you and your children the opportunities to thrive and we want families to grow.

It’s why we strongly support continued nationwide access to in-vitro fertilization. We want to help loving moms and dads bring precious life into this world. Wesley and I believe there is no greater blessing in life than our children. And that’s why tonight I want to make a direct appeal to the parents out there and in particular to my fellow moms, many of whom I know will be up tossing and turning at 2:00 am wondering how you’re going to be in three places at once and then somehow still get dinner on the table?

First of all, we see you, we hear you, and we stand with you. I know you’re frustrated. I know you’re probably disgusted by most of what you see going on in Washington. And I’ll be really honest with you, you’re not wrong for feeling that way. Look, I get it. The task in front of us isn’t an easy one, but I can promise you one thing.

It is worth it. So I am asking you for the sake of your kids and your grandkids, get into the arena. Every generation has been called to do hard things. American greatness rests in the fact that we always answer that call. It’s who we are. Never forget we are steeped in the blood of patriots who overthrew the most powerful empire in the world.

We walk in the footsteps of pioneers who tamed the wild. We now carry forward the same flame of freedom as the liberators of an oppressed Europe. We continue to draw courage from those who bent the moral arc of the universe. And when we gaze upon the heavens, never forget that our DNA contains the same ingenuity that put man on the moon.

America has been tested before and every single time we’ve emerged unbowed and unbroken. Our history has been written with the grit of men and women who got knocked down, but we know their stories because they did not stay down. We are here because they stood back up. So now it’s our turn our moment to stand up and prove ourselves worthy of protecting the American Dream.

Together, we can reawaken the heroic spirit of a great nation because America, we don’t just have a rendezvous with destiny, we take destiny’s hand and we lead it. Our future starts around kitchen tables just like this, with moms and dads just like you. And you are why I believe with every fiber of my being that despite the current state of our union, our best days are still ahead.

May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Okay, this speech wasn't Vlad's "how's that baby making going?" speech, but there's some interesting subtle messages in it.  Delivered from a kitchen, with lots of references to kiddo's.  You know, y'all? 

As an aside, this was just about the most affected Southern style of speech ever by somebody who is really Southern.  I can't recall a political speech with so many "y'all's".  And the "Bless his heart" line. Do Southerners realize that other Americans either don't know why Southerners say this, or find it weird?  No wonder this speech has been so widely lampooned.

Anyhow, I want to be very careful here as I'm certainly not against married couples having children, (note I inserted married in there) and I'm a proponent, perhaps a radical one, of traditional values, but neo pro natalism is a little weird.

Pro natalism?

Yes.

Consider Pronatalist.org.

There's a movement going on and the founders of Pronatalist.org, Simone and Malcolm Collins, are sort of at the point of the spear of it.  And in a way, while I'm not accusing them of anything, the message is pretty clear.  Populations are collapsing, they argue, and having babies is the counter to it.

Well, if that's correct, that's an obvious solution, but the added subtly to it is that the right kind of people aren't having babies.

All the other problems before us in this country, important though they may be, are as nothing compared with the problem of the diminishing birth rate and all that it implies.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Hardly remembered now, a big concern of the early 20th Century, in some quarters, was "race suicide".  Basically, whites had a declining birth rate, even before pharmaceutical birth control, and African Americans didn't.

I'm not stating that this is exactly what the neo pro natalists are concerned about. Rather, what I think some are concerned about is that the declining birth rate in Western and Westernized nations is falling.  Actually, the birth rate (and, FWIW, sperm count in males) is falling all over the globe.  But like a lot of issues, once it's notice, the actual nature of the problem, if there is a problem, is usually past its peak, although certainly isn't always the case.

There are some things here which are real problems, as well.  The decline in Western nations is a symptom of something, and that something isn't good, whatever it is.

But the added problem here is that it's easy to cross from concern into being creepy, and far right and far left movements do that, and have done that on this very issue in the past.

Consider the efforts in the 2023 legislature to oppose banning child marriages, which we posted on at the time. Some of our comments.:

I've been waiting for the opposition to happen.

This bill sailed through the house and is in the Senate, and I'm frankly surprised that the opposition didn't appear before now. Not because the bill is a bad idea.  It's a good one, and it should pass.  Marriages lower than 16 years old are a hideous idea, and frankly marriage below 18 sure a good one.  Nonetheless, a similar attempt at banning such marriages failed last year.

The reason I thought it would fail is that there's some silent opposition from at least the members of one religion in the state, and I thought it might arise there.  But, it didn't.  The objections to have a religious tinge to them, but not from the expected quarter.

But it's also taken on a rather creepy tone.

Apparently the email, which wasn't published in full by the press, stated the following:

This bill may seem harmless, but there are concerns about constitutional rights that you need to form your own opinions about

And then it linked to a blog post which it endorses, stating that it's a succinct analysis..

The blog post is easy to find.  And it provides, in its entirety, the following (complete with photo):

HB0007 - Underage marriage-amendments

HB0007 - Underage marriage-amendments

Sponsored By: Representative(s) Zwonitzer, Dn and Oakley and Senator(s) Case and Furphy

ESSENCE: "No person shall marry who is under the age of sixteen (16) years." PERIOD. END OF STORY. AND "Marriages contracted in Wyoming are void without any decree of divorce:... When either party is under sixteen (16) years of age at the time of contracting the marriage."

ACTION:

Write the members of the Senate and ask them to vote "NO" when HB 7 comes up on Monday's 2nd Reading.

Jim.Anderson@wyoleg.gov; Fred.Baldwin@wyoleg.gov; Eric.Barlow@wyoleg.gov; Bo.Biteman@wyoleg.gov; Brian.Boner@wyoleg.gov; Anthony.Bouchard@wyoleg.gov; Evie.Brennan@wyoleg.gov; Cale.Case@wyoleg.gov; Ed.Cooper@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Dockstader@wyoleg.gov; Ogden.Driskill@wyoleg.gov; Affie.Ellis@wyoleg.gov; Tim.French@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Furphy@wyoleg.gov; Larry.Hicks@wyoleg.gov; Lynn.Hutchings@wyoleg.gov; Bob.Ide@wyoleg.gov; Stacy.Jones@wyoleg.gov; Dave.Kinskey@wyoleg.gov; John.Kolb@wyoleg.gov; Bill.Landen@wyoleg.gov; Dan.Laursen@wyoleg.gov; Troy.McKeown@wyoleg.gov; Tara.Nethercott@wyoleg.gov; Stephan.Pappas@wyoleg.gov; Tim.Salazar@wyoleg.gov; Wendy.Schuler@wyoleg.gov; Charles.Scott@wyoleg.gov; Cheri.Steinmetz@wyoleg.gov

CONCERNS:

HB 7 denies the fundamental purpose of marriage:

Marriage is the only institution in Wyoming Statute designed to keep a child's father and mother living under the same roof and cooperating in the raising of any children that they, together, conceive. This is the NATURAL RIGHT of every child. As such, it is protected in the Wyoming Constitution (see. Art. 1, Sec. 3 and 23). Since young men and women may be physically capable of begetting and bearing children prior to the age of 16, marriage MUST remain open to them for the sake of those children. 

The sad fact that physical maturity often does not match emotional and intellectual maturity is an indictment of our modern educational system. That is a problem that should be addressed. But we should not use it as an excuse to instantiate bad law.

HB 7 denies parental rights.

Parents, by virtue of their right to conceive children, have the pre-political (i.e. God-given) responsibility to raise their own children. This right and responsibility includes guiding their own maturing children into the estate of Holy Matrimony. HB 7 strips parents of their right to consent to properly desired and well-ordered marriages when they are below an arbitrary age. Moreover, this arbitrary age limit is demonstrably lower than the historical norm of millennia of human existence. 

It is true that some perverse religions and cultures COERCE children to marry young, against their wishes. Sometimes, as in the case of human trafficking, this coercion comes from outside the family. Sometimes, it comes from the parents themselves. The Constitutional rights of children require that side-boards be in place to prevent such perversions. But those side-boards already exist in the form of written parental consent and judicial review of that consent. HB 7 removes those side-boards and replaces them with an arbitrary number that has no organic or essential impetus behind it. 

Comparison with other states:

Nearly all (49 out of 50 states) set the minimum age of legal consent at 18--just exactly as Wyoming does. Also like Wyoming, 46 of 50 allow people to get married below the minimum age if their parents give permission. Of these, 37 set the lowest age of marriage with parental consent at 16, while four (IN, NE, OR, WA) set it at 17, two set it at 15 (HI and MO), one (NH) sets it at 13, and two (CA and MS) have no minimum age for parental consent. 

In addition to CA and MS, 12 other states (AK, GA, HI, KS, MD, MA, NM, NC, OK, RI, UT, WV, WY) have judicial mechanisms that allow exceptions to the minimum age with parental consent. Some of these exceptions specifically name pregnancy, some prohibit age-differentials between the bride and groom more than four years. The sponsor testified that "Wyoming is one of eight states remaining, I believe, that do not have a minimum marriage age in statute" (AK, CA, MA, NM, NC, OK, RI, WV, WY and Puerto Rico). (Only California has both NO minimum age, and NO judicial mechanism.) The remaining 42 states set the absolute minimum age at 13 (NH), 15 (HI and MO), 17 (IN, NE, OR, WA) and 18 (KY and LA) and 16. HB 7 wipes away Wyoming's current mechanism for taking into account ANY special circumstances.

Testimony: 

Additionally, the bringers of HB 7 offer no evidence that Wyoming is facing any statistical uptick of coerced marriages. In the House committee, there was no testimony weighing the trade-off of parental rights over against any “significant issue” with child marriage in Wyoming. To the contrary, the sponsor of the bill openly admitted that “it is not what we would call a problem in this state.” On average 20 marriages per year under 18 and under in Wyoming. There was no testimony about the factual number under 16. Nor was there any testimony about why under 16 years old there should be no judicial exceptions.

Rather, the sponsor openly testified that the reason for bringing the bill is to “keep up with the Jones’” (i.e. 42 other states have put arbitrary age restrictions on marriage. After this dubious motivation, the testimony given in committee was fraught with hypothetical harms. For instance: “if a minor wants a divorce, she can’t hire of lawyer.” Or, “Minors might be coerced into marriage.” Or, “Minors, are not mature enough to marry.” All these cautions are already covered by current law that requires a judge to investigate whether or not the person is being coerced into marriage if that person is mature enough to legally consent. It is rather insulting to say that Wyoming judges are not up to the task that has been given them by law. But, that could be remedied by giving them legislative guidance or additional help. The responsibility does not need to be taken away altogether.

HB 7 violates the right of Wyoming citizens to marry.

Only a generation ago, people were regularly ready for marriage by the age of 15, not 16, and still today many Wyoming couples are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary after having been married prior to 15. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pertinent, here. "1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." As evidenced by the wide differences between states, the age of 16 is an arbitrary limitation that may serve as a general rule, but cannot be absolutely enforced without violating the "full age" standard of Article 16. HB 7 would arbitrarily strip away that right from people who actually have a legitimate reason to marry, and who desire to give their child a stable and loving home. This is unjust both to child and parents. 

FOR FURTHER READING:

Cowboy State Daily, Bill Banning Teens Younger Than 16 To Marry Passes Unanimously Through Senate Committee

Jonathan Lange, UNICEF Comes to Wyoming: Ham-handed uniformity oppresses the human family

PROGRESS:

1/13/2023 H Introduced and Referred to H03 - Revenue

1/17/2023 H03 - Revenue:Recommend Do Pass 6-3-0-0-0

Ayes:  Representative(s) Byron, Harshman, Northrup, Oakley, Storer, Zwonitzer

Nays:  Representative(s) Bear, Locke, Strock

1/18/2023 H COW:Passed / 1/19/2023 H 2nd Reading:Passed

1/20/2023 H 3rd Reading:Passed 36-25-1-0-0

Ayes:  Representative(s) Andrew, Berger, Brown, Burkhart, Jr, Byron, Chadwick, Chestek, Clouston, Conrad, Crago, Eklund, Harshman, Henderson, Larsen, Lloyd, Larson, Jt, Lawley, Nicholas, Niemiec, Northrup, Oakley, Obermueller, O'hearn, Olsen, Provenza, Sherwood, Speaker Sommers, Stith, Storer, Trujillo, Walters, Washut, Western, Wylie, Yin, Zwonitzer, Dan, Zwonitzer, Dave

Nays:  Representative(s) Allemand, Allred, Angelos, Banks, Bear, Davis, Haroldson, Heiner, Hornok, Jennings, Knapp, Locke, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Singh, Slagle, Smith, Strock, Styvar, Tarver, Ward, Winter

Excused:  Representative Newsome

2/2/2023 S Introduced and Referred to S07 - Corporations

2/9/2023 S07 - Corporations:Recommend Do Pass 4-0-1-0-0

Ayes:  Senator(s) Barlow, Boner, Case, Scott

Excused:  Senator Landen

2/9/2023 S COW: Passed 15-12 (standing vote)

Aye: Case, Cooper, Anderson, Boner, Scott, Jones, Pappas, Geireau, Ellis, Schuler, Barlow, Landen, Rothfuss, Furphy, Bouchard

Nay: Dockstader, Baldwin, Kinsky, Hicks, Steinmetz, Biteman, Salazar, Ide, French, Kolb, Hutchings, McKeown

Absent: Nethercott, Brennen (chair), Driskill, Laurson

Note the photograph, presumably representing a teenage girl, was in the original,  I didn't put it up there.

The gist of the argument is several fold as being presented here and elsewhere, which is.

1.  The bill will make it impossible for girls younger than 16 to get married if they get pregnant.

2.  In the past such marriages were common and its only through the operation of negative modern societal institutions that they aren't now.

3.  There are lots of examples of such marriages working out.

All of these are pretty bad arguments.

Which, in a lot of ways, defines the far right in general right now.  It's taking a genuine concern, and morphing it into something.

I.e., a concern over the loss of existential, and frankly Christian based, values and culture, doesn't need to morph into fawning over Viktor Orbán and imagining that Donald Trump is Cyrus the Great.

Last prior edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 60th Edition. Catching some z's.

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with t...:

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

Much of this, indeed the lion's share, could be fixed by reordering the economy to be Distributist.

That may seem extreme, but then, in the modern world, this is extreme, and frankly, we're in an extreme situation that we need to find a way out of or events of one kind or another will take us out of them for us.  

To be more extreme, we'd note what Cardinal Sarah has above, once again, the barbarians are alrady inside the city.

I've started off with agrarianism, and I mean it, but I'd also note that an aspect of agrarianism is distributism. All agraraians are distributists, not all distributist are agrarians.  We'll start with distributism.  

What the hecks is it, anyway.  We'll, we'll turn to an old Lex Anteinternet post, where we discussed that (we just bumped that post up here).

What the heck is Distributism anyway?

 The prolific writer G. K. Chesterton, who wrote novels, poetry, and philosophy in stunningly large quantities.  An intellectual giant, he was enormously influential on British writing in his era and was part of the collection of personalities that included C. K. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien and Hellaire Belloc.  Together with Belloc he was a major proponent of Distributism.

I'm fairly convinced that part of the problem with Distributism is the name.  At least up until recently, the concept that a politician would act to "distribute" wealth has been a hugely negative on in American political speech.  I suppose with Saunders running, a person could ask if this was still true, but for purposes of our discussion here we should note that Distributism doesn't mean that sort of distributing.  Quite the contrary.

Rather, Distributism is based on the concept of Subsidiarity, which of course doesn't help much to most people as most people don't know what that means.  That too is problematic as the term is really confusing to most people. The term comes out of Catholic social thinking, and it holds that the best and most just means of doing things is to push it down to the lowest practical level.  Ironically, that's a highly American concept and the polar opposite of the large-scale statist approach to things that many conservative Americans fear.  Subsidiarity stands for local control, or control below that level if possible.

In economic terms, or rather through Distributist terms, what this amounts to is an economic system based upon a free economy that favors economic power being concentrated at the family or individual level.  It's a highly capitalist system, and one that is actually more capitalist than the Corporate Capitalism that most westerners believe to be capitalism, which is really Corporate Capitalism.

A Distributist economy, therefore, would discourage, or perhaps even prohibit, the concentration of the means of retail distribution in the hands of corporations in favor of family or individual enterprises.  So, rather than have a Walmart, you'd have a family owned appliance store, a family owned clothing store, a family owned grocery store, etc.  That's a pretty simple illustration the retail end of the economy, but that's a major aspect of Distributism. Distributism also has an agricultural aspect to it that's frankly agrarian, although agrarianism predates Distributism.  What that means is that farms would be owned and operated by the actual farmer.  That sounds simplistic but it stands contrary to much of what we see today, with agricultural land held by absentee owners, or by the wealthy who do not work it, or by agricultural corporations.

Modern Distributist sometimes get wrapped up in romantic notions of local production as well, and that's clearly an aspect of a Distributist economy.  Nonetheless any rational economist, no matter what stripe they may be, will acknowledge that in the modern world large-scale industrial production is the province of corporations.  That may be good or bad, but it's been known and discussed as an aspect of this since the mid 19th Century at least.  Rational Distributist, to include, on this topic, Theodore Roosevelt, have discussed how to handle this in the context of a Distributist economy, but that it would be one is quite clear.

In short, Distributism favors the smallest economic unit possible.  And it does this on a philosophical basis, that being that small freeholders, or small businessmen, or small artisans, should hold the reins of the economy, as that concentrates wealth in their hands, those being middle class hands.  By doing that, that makes much of the middle class more or less economically independent, but not wealthy, stabilizes wealthy in the hands of the largest number of people, and strengthens the ability of the people to decide things locally.  In other words, that sort of economy "distributes" economic wealth and production to the largest number of people, and accordingly "distributes" political power to the largest number of people, on the theory that this is best for the largest number of people.

Interestingly, almost any stripe of Capitalist will actually use most of the same words, as well Socialist, even though there's reasons to question their respective impacts.  Socialism actually concentrates power in the hands of bureaucracy and dissipates wealth.  At least to some extent, Corporate Capitalism in recent years, and perhaps in all years, tends to concentrate wealth in remote corporations and a few who lead them.

So why is that important here?

Because what people don't have, is well. . . anything.  People are consumers, and servants.  They lack something of their own, and they accordingly lack stability.  Increasingly, on certain things, including economics and science, they lack education.

And, like the ignorant and have-nots tend to be, they're unhappy and made.

The unhappy and mad masses always make for ignorant revolutions, whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or the revolutionary period of the Weimar Republic that concluded with the Nazis coming to power.  Not having anything, they're willing to try something, whether that something be Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump.

It was Jefferson who noted that republics were grounded in yeomen farmers, for the reason that they were independent men.  Through Corporate Capitalism, we've been working on destroying the yeomanry for quite some time now.

The failure of people to have their own has been significant in creating the crisis that we face today.  People who worked for other entities, and that's most people, find themselves either adrift without them or slaves to them.  People live where they don't want to at jobs and careers they don't want to, in conditions they don't want to, even if they do not fully realize it, as their corporate masters compel them to.  It gets worse, all the time, and people are powerless against it.

Indeed, not only are they powerless, but they can be compelled to act against their own best interests, and often do.  People who love one thing as their true selves, will work to destroy the ability to do it for their corporate masters.  You don't have to look much beyond the Wyoming legislature to see this, where some advocate policies that would deprive average Wyomingites to access to public lands, for example, something that only serves the interest of the wealthy.

 What does a Distributist Economy look like?

Generally, what Distributist would do is to strip away, as noted, the ability of large entities to own and operate businesses and "distribute" that down to the smallest practical element.  So, where you have big box stores you'd now have lots of small retail stores.  Where you have chain stores you no longer would. Where you have have chain services shops, a relatively new and fast developing economic entity, you would have individually owned shops.  Where you had chain service industries, such as reality brokerages, you would once again have small locally owned ones.  Where you have H & R Block, you'd have your local accountant. 

 

 Drug store in Southington Connecticut, 1940s.  This family had a shop on this corner for about 200 years at the time this photograph was taken. Do they still?  Photo from an earlier, and now linked in, thread.  This sort of sore had disappeared from many localties in favor of a consolidating the goods sold by a sotre like this in some bigger, chain, store.

Proprietor of family butcher shop, 1940s.  This industry still exists, but the butcher shop has yielded at least partially to the chain grocery store.  For people who like little clues from movies, the film "Marty" involves the story of a simple butcher who has bought such a shop from an owner who has no family.  The intrusion of the super market is actually mentioned in the film,

 

 Paint store.  It's not Home Depot.

 Colorado Bakery and Grocery, a local store of the past in Ft. Collins Colorado.  It's now a brew pub.  Local grocery stores have fallen way off, from once dominating the field to now being a boutique exception.  Brew pubs, however, are a Distributist triumph in the true sense.

This raises the natural question of what about production?  All that addresses is retail.  What about service industries, what about production, and what about agriculture.

Service is one of the easier aspect of this to address, actually, as it started remote national concentration late in the game, and its far from complete.  When we look at doctors, lawyer, and accountants, and the like, we still a lot of the old economy around, while we see the encroachment of national corporate consolidation coming in at the same time.  Something about many of these industries, however, is resistant to too much consolidation, even as we see big efforts to cause it to come about.

In a Distributist economy, quite simply, this would stop.  Law Firms, Accountancy Firms, Doctors offices, would be local.   Hospitals and the likes would be as well.

A couple of old building in Rock Spring's historic district, across from the class Union Pacific depot.  The building on the left is the National Bank building, and was built in 1892.  The one on the right has much of its "ghost signs" painted out, so I'm not sure of its identity, but it's number 18 on the historic district tour. From Painted Bricks.

Well, what about banks? They're a service industry.

Banks, under classic Distributist thought, were really taken on as a negative aspect of the economy and frankly this is one of the areas where old school Distributist, prior to World War Two, sounded a lot like Socialist.  If you look back at Distributist commentary of that period you will find a lot of references to preventing banks from charging interest, and things of this ilk.  All that was extremely unrealistic, to say the least, and it also reflects an earlier era which has really passed.  Taking  on banks is a favorite topic for all politicians now days, but the biggest problems we've had with banks are founded on banking consolidation and inadequate regulation.

Banks, as concentrations of economic maladies, usually only develop real problems when they are largely unregulated. When the old school Distributist formed their thoughts on the matter, that was the case. And the recent banking problems the United States has had largely flowed from the concept that regulation of banks was passe, followed by an actual effort on the part of the government to encourage banks in areas that they shouldn't go.  An overarching aspect of all of this is that an old policy of encouraging home ownership via home loans is a remaining nonsensical central American governmental goal that creates problems in and of itself.  Finally, the consolidation of banking into larger and larger remotely owned banks contributes to the problem. There still are locally owned or regionally owned banks, but not nearly as many as there once was.

Realistically, as banks are so heavily regulated, in a modern Distributist economy the goal would be to keep the banks local or at least no more than regional.  That keeps them focused on their locality and the local economy. The Federal government's sponsorship of home loans probably ought to cease, although that is probably a Distributist concept, or maybe even a Socialist one, in and of itself.  Encouraging any one kind of loan is something that should be really carefully thought out before its done.

Or maybe the ship has sailed with banks, like industrial production (which we'll address below), and today Distributist would have to have a mixed approach, encouraging local but tolerating national.  It's hard to see how industry in particular could exist without large banks.

Large banking has given us credit cards, an aspect of the economy wholly unknown to the original Distributist.  Of course ,they were unknown to earlier Capitalist as well, and have just sort of occurred. This too may be an area where the ship has sailed, but on the other hand, it would be one that I'd have a hard time imagining modern Distributist avoiding.  But how that would be handled in the new economy, which only saw the introduction of widespread use of credit cards starting in the 1970s, is an open question.  Credit cards now make up a huge percentage of the "money" in our economy, and they are interesting an huge unregulated sector, to a significant degree.  That is ,the percentage of interest they charge are regulated, but the creation of them is not.  It's been an amazing change in the economy.

Comedian Marty Allen making a joke of having a large number of credit cards, something that was looked down upon in the 1960s when this photograph was taken.  Now, nearly everyone in the American economy has at least one credit card.

It's an interesting topic, but one that I won't be able to address fully, which is one of the problems when discussing a modern Distributist economy (we'll get to problems in a minute). As there's been no real development of the theory in decades, and as it's never been fully implemented anywhere, some of these topics need to be completely re-thought by Distributists.

Among those topics are topics like insurance.  Americans like to complain about insurance, but by and large the insurance industry is amazingly capable and it really can't be done efficiently on a local level.  This is true of all types of insurance, to include most particularly liability insurance, which people don't think about much but which is particularly important to the economy.  Indeed, topics like banking and insurance do indeed suggest that a Distributist economy might be a bad idea.

Blacksmiths working on the iron rim of a wheel.

That leaves production.

In production, this can also be done, but only to a certain extent in a realistic modern economy.  Indeed, a surprising amount of production of various types is done this way, as nearly every major economic field features local fabrication of some sort, which is local production.  But it's quite clear that in a modern industrial economy, you can't have local production of everything.  Cars, for example, aren't going to be made in a local shop by skilled craftsmen.

How Distributist would handle this aspect of their economic theory is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer.  Some would borrow from Socialist examples, all of which are problematic.  Some might borrow from Theodore Roosevelt's progressive era suggestion and require public ownership of a certain percentage of large corporations, to give a voice in their affairs.  Some might restrict organizing in the corporate forum until a business reached a certain size.  All in all, I don't know how this topic would be approached.  It might be approached in the same way that modern Socialism tends to approach it, which is basically not to except by regulation and taxation, which really takes a person outside of the context of the theory in general and into something else.  What is clear is that in this area the example of Corporate Capitalism would have to largely suffice for Distributist as well.

Union Pacific Depo in Rock Springs Wyoming.  This surviving business from the 19th Century would never have come about except through extensive government support, something that often tends to be forgotten when the stories of large business in the United States are considered.  Indeed, nearly every very large railroad in North American had some government assistance of some sort when it came into existence.

Distribution of goods, on the other hand, is really mixed, but will probably cease to be in the future for environmental reasons.  Right now, distribution of goods in the North American economy is an interesting mixed system, using locally owned and often leased semi tractor combined with large corporate railways.  By and large, the system, if it involves distance, is corporate owned one way or another, and that probably cannot be avoided.  Transcontinental distribution, therefore, may be something like large scale manufacturing and have to be basically left as is, in a Distributist economic model.  Or perhaps it would be handled in one of the several fashions described above as theoretical possibilities for manufacturing.

Okay, I suppose that's all well and good, but so what?  Once again, lots of people note these things and then think they're bold Distributist as they buy free range Cornish Game Hens at the local market.

A person can believe that they can bring an economy about through self actuation, but that's baloney and its really only a comfortable delusion for the really well off. It's the same sort of delusion that comforted wealthy western Communists in the 1920s and 1930s who lived in countries that were never going to be Communist, as there was never any real threat of a real Communist economy to them.  A real economic system, no matter what it is, never comes about without state intervention or support of some kind.

This is most evident, of course, in real classical Socialism, in which the state owns the means of production.  Taking that one step further, as the Communist tried to, the state can end up owning everything.  Those are the most blunt examples, and by the way they're examples of massively unworkable economic failures. That's why there are no real Communist economies outside of North Korea, and that's why most Socialist don't really advocate real Socialism anymore.

But even Capitalism, of the type that we have, requires state intervention to exist. We're just so used to it, we don't notice it.

That's because our Capitalism is Corporate Capitalism.  It's based on the existence of corporations and related business forms. These entities have the status of "persons" at law.  They can sue, be sued, and are taxed, like people as we've seen.

The biggest economic advantage that they convey is the sue and be sued part, as that's where they are distinctly different from their natural fellow, the partnership.  In a conventional partnership, a person can be sued as an individual. That puts their individual assets at risk.  That's not true, however for shareholders in a corporation.  Only the corporate assets are ever at risk.

So, by way of an example, if Walmart does something bad, they don't look to the individual shareholders to make it good. They only look to Walmart.

Additionally, corporations allow for easy remote control.  Generally they're directed by boards rather than by everyone in the entity.  That's less true of normal common partnerships, where everyone gets a say.

All of this is noted as corporations, and related business forms, very obviously have a huge economic advantage over other types of business entities.  They're not natural, but legal fictions, but that legal fiction gives them enormous economic advantage. And that legal fiction is a creature of the state.  Corporations only exist as the statutory law allows people to create them. They would otherwise not exist at all.

Which leads us back to Distributism.  Rather obviously the way to bring about a modern Distributist economy is simply to limit where corporations can be formed, as we've seen. That would largely do it.  And that's a mere modification of the existing law.

If you prohibited, for example, corporations on the retail end, it would wipe out overnight entities like Walmart. There's no question about it. And in its place you'd soon find multiple locally owned stores where once the big box store had been.  And if you provided that land had to be held by the person working it, absentee landlords in agriculture and owning land as an exotic hobby would likewise be over.

There would obviously be limits to how far a person could go in this direction, however, in a modern economy.  Corporations would have to exist for large scale manufacturing.There's no earthly way that products of the type made by General Motors, or Boeing, of Apple, can be made by local entrepreneurs operating without the corporate form.  Therefore any rational system of Distributism, as opposed to a purely theoretical one, would have to accommodate itself to that just as modern Socialism also has.

Should it be tried?

So, it's pretty clear that a country could have a Distributist Economy.  It is realistic.  But that doesn't answer whether Distributism should be tried, which is quite another questions.

In other words, just because you can do something, sure doesn't mean that you should.

In order to answer that question, you have to determine what the goal of Distributism is, and whether that's something we want to effect.  You also have to determine what the negatives of it are, and whether they are worth enduring.  To even look at that, you have to first ask what the point of any economic system is.

It's pretty easy to determine the point, or thesis, of Capitalism, even in the modified Corporate Capitalist system that we have, or that anyone else has.  The general idea is that a free market is the most efficient and natural of economies and that as it is efficient, it leads to the efficient production of goods, and that creates wealth for everyone.  Corporate Capitalism's thesis is that the allowance of a legal fiction, the corporation, allows the combination of capital and management in such a fashion as to facilitate business in a capitalist model, thereby boosting productivity and hence wealth.

Before going on to Distributism, which is actually a species of capitalism, I'll note the same for Socialism. Socialism in its classic form is pretty easy to grasp, thesis wise.  Socialist argue that capitalism creates an unequal distribution of wealth favoring the owners of the means of production over the actual producers, and the solution to this is to have the state be the owner and distribute back to the worker.  As Socialism fails pretty badly in the execution, modern Socialist by and large don't actually advocate that, however, and instead focus on social activism and engineering, thereby taking themselves quite some distance from their economic theorist origins.  Indeed, many Socialist now appear to actually be some sort of capitalist, but of the state intervention variety.  The interesting thing about that is that it takes them in the direction of the "managed economy", which is basically what most western nations had, including the United States, from about 1932 through about 1980, when corporate capitalism reasserted itself.

Socialism was a reaction to early laissez faire capitalism, which was really early Corporate Capitalism.  It's undoubtedly the case that early industrialization lead to a very unequal distribution of wealth, but taking the long view, any early Capitalist economic enterprise does that.  Sure, factory owners of the 19th Century were vastly wealthy and their workers on the edge of poverty, but then the creators of electronic and internet based enterprises have become vastly wealthy in our modern age as well.  This is not to say that things were not unfair on the factory floor, but often missed in that story is that those jobs attracted a steady stream of applicants in any event, indicating that they were better than whatever they were fleeing from, which was probably rural poverty for those who did not own their own land.  At any rate, Socialism was an attempt, and a radical one, to address the ills of Corporate Capitalism of its day.  Ironically, Socialism in its real forms turned out to be worse, and the antidote to that nearly everywhere was Corporate Capitalism to at least some degree, often with a fair amount of state management in the old Communist countries.  

Put another way, where you don't have rich people, you tend to have all poor people.

Corporate Capitalism, however, was itself sort of a reaction to mercantilism.  Capitalism is a natural form of economics, but Corporate Capitalism clearly is not.  It came about in order to attempt to efficiently handle the scale of modern business, with the only prior way to do that being the unwieldy system of mercantilism, which  granted state sponsored monopolies to big business enterprises, such as the East India Company.  Mercantilism at least allowed for big business endeavors, but at the expense of discouraging competition, and hence it was inefficient and more than a little unfair.

Distributism came about as a reaction to both Corporate Capitalism and Socialism, back in the first half of the 20th Century when Socialism in its extreme form, Communism was strong (as was its socialist/autarkic competitor, fascism).   Coming up out of Catholic social thought, as it did, it was focused on the plight of the common man, but with a distinctly different viewpoint of Socialism.  It did not oppose the private ownership of property at all, but rather sought to vest it under the principals of subsidiarity, as previously noted.  This, it was thought, would address the unequal distribution of wealth (hence "Distributism") in a natural way, for the benefit of common people.

It's easy, of course, to find examples of Corporate Capitalism (just go downtown anywhere) and Socialism, but as Distributism is a younger theory in modern terms, and as Distributist shelved their ideas during World War Two in order to work for the common good, it's much harder to find examples of it.  You actually can, but you have to be able to recognize bits and pieces when you see it, and quite frankly it's often the case that the drafters of anyone proposal that went into law didn't conceive of themselves as Distributist, although sometimes they did.

A good example of it is provided by various European farming laws which disallow corporate or absentee ownership of farmland.  France is a good example, which is how the rural sector of France has remained fairly strong. Post war Germany also had a farm sector that was intentionally designed to be Distributist, by a Distributist.  At least one US state, however, also has a variant of such a law, and would probably be pretty surprised to find itself described as Distributist.  Various state and city ordinances restricting big box stores in some localities are also clearly Distributist, although the backers of those laws are no doubt largely ignorant of that.

Okay, so that's what it is, but that still doesn't answer the "so what" question.  Should Distributism be tried, or advanced as an economic theory?

Well, that probably depends upon how you view an economy in general. The Corporate Capitalist model, which has existed since the 17th Century, has certainly had its ups and downs, but over a very long course of time, and when braced by some state management, but not too much, it clearly is highly efficient.  It drives prices down and floods the market with  nearly endless options.  It's brought wealth to the nations that employ it. All of this is good, so the question could be, why tinker with that?

An answer to that might be to note that Distributism really is tinkering with that.  Not wholly replacing it. That's because Distributism is also a form of capitalism, just a more natural one.  Or potentially a more natural one. As Distributism is much poorer formed than Capitalism as a theory, some Distributist flirt with Socialism and high degrees of social activism, while others do not.

If we take the simply notion of Distributism, however, it's merely another type of Capitalism, and an older one, as by implication it would have to rely less on the corporation.  No modern capitalist economy can avoid corporations, but as previously noted they could rely on them less. But why would that matter?

It would matter, if it does, because the net effect would be to push down the economy to a much more local and personal level.  To be blunt, is it better to have really cheap prices, but remote ownership, and lower wages (Corporate Capitalism) vs. higher prices and locally owned self sustaining middle class business (Distributism)?  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  Under a Distributism model, assuming that it would actually work, there'd be fewer very rich people and more middle class business owners. But even being in the middle class would be probably at least somewhat more expensive than it current is, and it'd be more the middle class of fifty years ago, which most people in the middle class were in the middle, or bottom, of the middle class back, with few in the upper areas of it.  Now, quite a few in the middle class are upper middle class, and of course we have more super wealthy than every before.  So, by getting more in the middle, on both ends, we take some out of the bottom and some out of the top.

Some would argue that the depression of economic classes from the upper end down, while taking the bottom and bringing it up, was a good collateral byproduct from a social point of view, although that really takes us out of economics, and Distributist economics, into something else.  Certainly bringing the bottom up undoubtedly has it merits, and is the point of any economic theory really.  Depressing the top down is another matter when it extends into the middle class, and very few in our economy would openly admit that. Even modern Socialist always claim to be acting on behalf of the Middle Class, when formerly they would have condemned as being bourgeois.  The arguments on that would vary, but basically it would be that there's something bad about having too much wealth in an economy, which again really gets beyond economics and into social theory. That's a problematic theory, but it is interesting to note that wealthy societies do tend to become effete. 

Of course, everything would also be much more locally focused, with is an additional point advanced by Distributist as an advantage.

The answer to our question, therefore, I suppose, might depend on how you view your role in the economy, but there are some serious things to consider here.  Corporate Capitalism has brought vast wealth to the world, and we no doubt live in the wealthiest period of time the world has ever seen.  Indeed, by world standards, the United States has virtually nobody who would qualify as truly poor, although by our standards we clearly do and that is not to be made light of.  Anyhow, why would anyone want to mess with that?

Well, one reason may be in that in the long history of Corporate Capitalism it seemingly goes through stages over time where it truly does concentrate vast wealth into the hands of very few, with bad results for almost everyone else.  The mid 19th Century history of Corporate Capitalism heavily featured that, which as we know gave rise to Communism and hardcore radical Socialism.  In the US, it gave rise to Progressiveness, a movement that flirted with Socialist ideas (and which flirted with some Distributist ones).  The ills of the mid 19th Century ended up being addressed, one way or another, and in most localities that ended up with labor coming out pretty well. But in our new highly global economy that does seem to be not so much the case anymore, at least if the arguments of individuals like Thomas Piketty are to be believed.  Indeed, individuals like Piketty argue that the economy is yielding to a new type of oligarchy, at the expense of everyone except the oligarchs.

Added to that, a prior feature of Corporate Capitalism was to alter the nature of a locality fairly heavily, and sometimes an entire society, but often not so much.  Now, however, Corporate Capitalism in its current form, in the US, seems to be driving everyone to the cities in a fashion not seen since the early British Industrial Revolution.  There's no good evidence that this really suits everyone, it merely suits the economy itself.  So, it has to be seriously asked if the economy is serving the people, or are the people serving the economy.  Looking at contemporary choices that people have, or don't have, it seems more and more that people are serving the economy.  Put another way, is a life of cubicles and clerking really all that nifty?

As part of that, the high state of development of Corporate Capitalism like we know have has very much worked to divest people from business. That is, localism has really suffered as a result of it.  People have little connection to the stores that provide much of their goods, and for that matter the people providing them have little connection with the people they're providing them to.  In some agricultural sectors the people owning land have next to no connection with the states where they own them.  Indeed, one of hte more amusing, and at the same time sad, aspects of modern Western ranching is that sooner or later everyone doing it is going to run across a photo in some journal of a smiling wealthy man whom the journalist writes up as a "rancher", when what he really is a hobbyist with clothing that makes him look a bit absurd to locals. But that same individual keeps those locals from actually being ranchers, as they cannot compete with him economically. All of that hurts the local, and over time people become divorced form their own localities, with negative results.

For these reasons, I suspect, we're starting to see some really serious flirting with Socialism for the first time in about thirty years, which is interesting, and scary to anyone who has any passing familiarity with the history of Socialism in actual practice.  By and large, people are doing well economically but there is something they don't like about what their seeing, maybe.  Bernie Saunders now stands a real chance of being the nominee of the Democratic Party even though he's an avowed Socialist, the first time that a Socialist has advanced in Democratic politics since the late 1940s.  While none of this may have anything to do with economic thought, as earlier noted Australia and Canada have taken slight left turns in recent parliamentary elections, and Greece took a huge left turn.  Of course, some nations, like Denmark and Hungary, have taken sharp right turns.  We can assume that all of these voters don't know what they are doing, but that's not a safe assumption.  Some state of general discontent on something seems to be lurking out there, with some pretty radical solutions in the mix here and there.

And for that reason, it's to be lamented that there aren't any Distributist candidates in any party, anywhere.  Distributism is a subtle economic theory, but it's clearly more of a realistic one than Socialism is, and yet it seems to address many of the aspects of discontent that drive people into leftist economic theories.  As with our national politics, in which everyone has to be a Republican or a Democrat, no matter what they actually think, in our economy it seems you have to be a (Corporate) Capitalist or a Social Democrat, which makes very little sense.  There's no reason to believe that these two camps are the only natural ones, and taking a look at some Distributist ideas seems to be well overdue.  It's clear that no purely Distributist economy is going to come about in our day and age, but that doesn't mean that some of the ideas do not indeed have merit.  Some should be looked at.  Indeed, that's where the disappointment in a lack of such ideas being floated, except by some theorist and seemingly the Pope, is a shame.  It isn't as if any modern country is going to wholesale adopt Distributism.  But maybe some Distributist ideas are worth seriously considering, and right now they aren't getting any air.  It would be nice if they could, particularly when we see the failed theory of Socialism getting some, amazingly.

So, what about agriculture, and this agrarian thing?