I was recently asked to give a talk to the Radcliffe Alumni Association on the topic of inequality in America. "We'd like," they said, "for you to give us the libertarian perspective on this issue."

"Well," I told them, "my own position is actually probably more distributist. But here's is my colleagues contact info..."

However, she turned them down. And so they came back to me and said, "Well, we'd love to get the distributist perspective on this topic!"

So, now, having put my foot in it, I've got to learn something about distributism!

Just warning you about what is coming up in this space. I'm starting on Chesterton tonight.


  1. I'm down to read what you have to say, Gene! I am extremely interested in Distributism!

  2. I tried to 'crash course' myself on distributism awhile back. The best book (well, essay) I found (IMO) was The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc.

    I found their criticisms interesting, but in the end I found it hard to get behind their economics. But maybe you'll see more in it than I did...

    1. "I found their criticisms interesting, but in the end I found it hard to get behind their economics."

      You don't need to support someone's economics to support their politics. One could just as easily think the LTV is correct and believe in laissez-faire.

    2. Not really getting what you mean. I think Adam Smith would have been pro-LTV and laissez-faire, but the point there was he was working with not so great theory. Bad theory would generally lead to bad (i.e., destructive, counterproductive, etc) policy.

      Belloc and Chesterton both proposed things which seemed to me (at the time) would be counterproductive and destructive. I could not get behind that policy, even if I do very much sympathize with their POV. In fact, I would probably advocate against the things they proposed.

      Or, more likely, wracked my brain for better solutions. But I would not have advocated for their platform, as I do not think it would have improved the situation.