Agrarianism considered again

John Zmirak from Taki's Magazine writes persuasively on the topic in his article, A Road Not Taken, Distributism. This is from the last half:

Explained with brutal brevity, Distributists such as Chesterton and Belloc favored action by the State on the economy--though much less radical steps than those enacted by Franklin Roosevelt, not to mention the draconian measures socialists and fascists advocated. As Carlson explains, Distributist laws, had they been enacted, would have reduced concentrations of real estate and farms, diminished the competitiveness of chain stores and centralized industries, and encouraged the growth and flourishing of small farms, artisan workers, small businesses, and mom and pop shops. Distributists favored the confiscation of some land--most of which, in England, had been accumulated with the connivance of the State, or outright stolen from the Church, so it was already “tainted” from a property-rights perspective--and its division into small plots which could be worked by willing farmers. They also supported tax laws that favored small businesses over large, and strict laws forbidding mergers and “monopolies.” In postwar Europe, Röpke pressed for several such measures, but with no success. In their absence, the welfare state indeed grew up, as he’d predicted; as the family further fractured, the birth rate plummeted. Now the Continent itself is being colonized. Whether Distributist measures would have prevented this decline is hard to determine, since they have so infrequently been attempted. (One exception, Carlson notes, is the U.S. federal government’s promotion of home-ownership after World War II, which helped millions of Americans become home-owners. On the other hand, this development gave birth to the suburb.)

Libertarians such as Tom Woods have offered cogent critiques of the ethics and possible outcomes of a government-sponsored Distributist agenda, and knives have been drawn between the paleo-libertarians and neo-distributists. But I don’t think the quarrel between them need be so bitter. As I’ve written before, in a friendly critique of Rod Dreher’sCrunchy Cons, it really is possible to square the circle here. How about this: Those of us who understand the importance of economic independence, the virtues of independent farms and mom and pop businesses (and here comes the radical step) should patronize them. And convince our friends to join us. And boycott everything else. We should spend the extra money to shop downtown instead of driving to the mall, buy vegetables at farmers’ markets, and fund all this by eschewing our least important luxuries. That’s how the thriving organic food industry came into existence, and the home-schooling movement, too. Each happened by private initiative, without the heavy (corrupting) hand of the State ever getting in the way. There are now thousands of independent farms that would have otherwise closed down, and thriving downtowns (like Nashua, New Hampshire, where I’m happy to say I shop), supported by consumers who think it’s important that they exist. And thanks to home-schooling, millions of kids who can actually read.

Of course, the most radical among the Distributists will complain at this point: “That’s not enough. That’s merely a drop in the bucket. Only a serious initiative by the government could turn the situation around....” To which I would say: Even if you’re right--what is the current likelihood of that? Why not take all the energy and talent you might use trying to organize a mass movement favoring compulsory Distributism… and channel into persuading people to practice it? You’re much likely to succeed, and will gain avoid the likely hazard of increasing the power of the modern, “servile” State.

Maybe I'll go to the Farmer's Market next time after all.