Showing posts with label Subsidiarity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Subsidiarity. Show all posts

Lex Anteinternet: Just two weeks ago Congress passed a bill that included funding for FEMA.

Lex Anteinternet: Just two weeks ago Congress passed a bill that inc...

Just two weeks ago Congress passed a bill that included funding for FEMA.

Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!

Aesop. 

Contrary to news reports, it was not a FEMA funding bill, it was the stop gap bridge measure to keep the government open.


The hard right in Congress, including Wyoming's lone Congressman, voted against it.  Voting against such bills has been really popular in the populist street level politics of Wyoming.  And the hard right sees it as a way to force fiscal responsibility, as long as you don't want to be too cynical about it.  It'd also handicap the government if it didn't pass, of course, which some long for.

Rep. Hageman gave her reasons as follows:

Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman voted in favor of H.R. 9494 - Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act, 2025 (CR) that would keep the federal government open through March 28, 2025 and include the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act, cosponsored by Rep. Hageman and passed earlier this year by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, would require states to obtain proof of citizenship—in person—when registering an individual to vote and require states to remove non-citizens from existing voter rolls. The bill failed 220-202.

Representative Hageman stated, “Safeguarding our election process is critically important, especially with the open border policies of the Biden-Harris administration that have allowed over 11 million illegals to enter our country. By including the SAVE Act with government funding and extending the funding into 2025, when Republicans have a strong chance of controlling the House, Senate, and White House, America wins. We will be able to craft responsible appropriations bills that slash wasteful spending, stop the current administration’s radical climate agenda, and eliminate woke DEI programs from federal agencies – at the same time, we can ensure that only American citizens vote in federal elections.
“I am disappointed that the House was unable to pass H.R. 9494 today. While Continuing Resolutions are never ideal, securing our elections and creating an opportunity to pass conservative spending bills in 2025 created a unique opportunity. I will not support a CR that fails to include the SAVE Act.”
I'm sure her logic is likewise popular in the state, but I'd note that tying immigration to continuing spending is linking two unrelated things.  She voted against the bill that passed.

Anyhow, while this wasn't a FEMA spending bill, FEMA is part of the government and gets its money from the government, which would have closed if the CR hadn't passsed. . . .

FEMA is now addressing hurricane damage in the Southeast last week, and is about to deal with a second hurricane that looks to hit Florida with a fury not matched in a century.

Interestingly, the Trump campaign is now lying (imagine that) about disaster relief funds not making it to Appalachia.  Trump has, of course, inspired the far right and the "shut the government down" midset.

Well, what about us?

Here are the list of disasters that FEMA recognizes for this year in Wyoming:

Incident Period:  - and continuing
Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on 
Incident Period:  - and continuing
Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on 
Incident Period:  - and continuing
Fire Management Assistance Declaration declared on 

 And quite frankly, there are going to be more to come.

The Elk Fire near Dayton and Sheridan is now up to 75,000 and is only 10% contained as of this morning.  A forest fire broke out in this county yesterday afternoon.*

These fires aren't stopping until it snows, and daily temperatures are freakishly high for October.

Let's discuss subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity on this site is defined in the Catholic sense.  It is an organizing principle that things (problems, matters, politics, economics) ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.

Least centralized competent authority, not the least centralized authority.

The most centralized competent authority can indeed be the Federal government for large disasters, particularly multistate disasters, and ones which require large sums of money that cannot be locally obtained.

That latter is particularly the case for Wyoming.

We can't afford these disasters on our own. We can't afford to fight them.  We can't address what they destroy.

Wyomingites are on social media right now complaining that the country is ignoring us.  Well, attention works two ways.

This upcoming 2025 Legislature is likely to see the House controlled by the "Wyoming" Freedom Caucus.  The "Wyoming" Freedom Caucus basically wants to give the Federal Government the middle finger salute.  But nobody in the state wants to tell Washington "no thanks, you keep your FEMA, Highway, FAA money, we'll do it on our own".  

There's a word for lashing out when you don't get what you want, and see yourself as the center of things.

A tantrum, angry outburst, temper tantrum, lash out, meltdown, fit, or hissy fit is an emotional outburst, usually associated with those in emotional distress. It is typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, violence, defiance, angry ranting, a resistance to attempts at pacification, and, in some cases, hitting and other physically violent behavior. Physical control may be lost; the person may be unable to remain still; and even if the "goal" of the person is met, they may not be calmed. Throwing a temper tantrum can lead to a child getting detention or being suspended from school for older school age children, and can result in a timeout or grounding, complete with room or corner time, at home. A tantrum may be expressed in a tirade: a protracted, angry speech.

Wikipedia. 

“Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!”, Aesop counseled, and for a reason.  And Sappho counseled "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

And, of course:

Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 16:18.

We've been pretty proud here recently. 

Footnotes:

*A message from the Game and Fish:

Sheridan – The Wyoming Game and Fish Department advises hunters that the Elk Fire in Sheridan County continues to grow, impacting wildlife habitat and access to certain hunt areas.

 

Hunt areas impacted by the fire or associated public access closures are currently located within Elk Hunt Areas 37 and 38 and Deer Hunt Areas 24 and 25. This is an active fire situation and these areas may change. Game and Fish is maintaining a fire information page for hunters and updating it regularly.

 

As of Oct. 5, 2024, the following Access Yes areas have been closed until further notice:

 

  • PK Lane Hunter Management Area. 
  • Sheridan County Walk in Areas #8 and #12. 

     

Game and Fish personnel are assisting public safety officials and fire suppression efforts as requested.

 

Personnel will assess impacts to Commission-owned properties and wildlife habitat when it is safe to do so.

 

Members of the public should be extra vigilant in watching for wildlife on roadways to avoid collisions, as animals may relocate to new areas where they usually aren’t expected.

 

Wildlife are generally adept at moving away from wildfires and the department has not received reports of injured animals at this time. Members of the public who see an injured animal can report the location to the Stop Poaching Hotline at 1-877-WGFD-TIP. The hotline operates 24 hours a day and reports are sent to the nearest wildlife manager to respond.  

 

Hunters should consult the Bighorn National Forest website and Facebook page for the most current information on fire conditions and public access closures. 

 

Other resources for information about the fire, current road closures and other impacts include the Sheridan County Emergency Management Department and Wyoming Department of Transportation.

 

Hunters can call the Sheridan Regional Office at 307-672-7418 for more information.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , 

Lex Anteinternet: Agitio ter consuli, gemitus britannorum . . .Repel...

Lex Anteinternet: Agitio ter consuli, gemitus britannorum . . .Repel...

Agitio ter consuli, gemitus britannorum . . .Repellunt barbari ad mare, repellit mare ad barbaros; inter haec duo genera funerum aut iugulamur aut mergimur.

So on this Sunday, 2024, I worked, contrary to God's injunction, like on so many others. As a result, I didn't really catch up with the horrific plight of Appalachia in the wake of Hurricane Helene.

It's awful.

Which makes this the worst, and best, time to note this.

We're headed into a legislative session, and an election season, in which the far right espouses a hatride of the Federal Government.  If you are in Appalachia, and vote for the populists, you are voting to handle this disaster on your own.  If you are in Wyoming, and voting populists, the same is true of the horrible fires we've experienced and are yet to.

If that is your view, don't ask for help, as stupid and cold as not asking for help would be.

We here are distributists, a philosophy that holds things should devolve to the lowest level possible. Here, that level is the Federal government.  Distributism works up, as well as down.

Additionally, how long will we choose to ignore the signs?  We've waited longer than we should have as it is.  There's still time to act, no matter how much it impacts your temrporary pocket books, with you being temporary as it is.

Lex Anteinternet: Going to the hardware store. A note on taxes.

Lex Anteinternet: Going to the hardware store. A note on taxes.

Going to the hardware store. A note on taxes.

Socialism is when the government does stuff. And it's more socialism the more stuff it does. And if it does a real lot of stuff, it's communism.

Richard D. Wolff.1

I saw them there when I went into the hardware store, but they were talking to somebody and I didn't have to engage them.  I was not so lucky on the way out.  I glanced over as there oddly enough were cookies at the table and I thought for a moment it might be an effort to raise money for something like the Girl Scouts, but there were no girls there.  Only two women, whom I'd guess were in their 70s.

Them: Excuse me sir, are you a registered voter?

I'll be frank, I really hate the initiative and referendum process.  I figure most people sign the petitions to get something on the ballot, as they are polite and don't really want to offend the signature takers.  Eons ago, I was like that myself.

I've long since being that way.  Most of the time I refuse to sign the petitions, but I don't engage the petitioners in debate.

And I didn't this time.  I wish I had.

The rest of the brief conversation:

    Me: Yes (said in an irritated tone).

    Them: Would you like to sign our petition?  If passed, it would drop property taxes 50%.

    Me: No (said in an even more irritated tone).

By the time I got home, I was irritated with myself.  I wish I had engaged them in conversation.  If I had, what I would have said is this?

Oh?  Property taxes in Wyoming, which has no income tax, pay for police, fire departments, basic city sevices and education.  Why do you hate policemen, firemen and teachers?

That's brutal, but that's the truth.  If we don't tax property for these things, we have to tax something else, or go without.

This city has had two reported teenage murders in the last month, and a lot of killings here just go unreported. We have a developing violent gang problem.  I'm not even going to bother with the drug problem that comes with living in a city that's on an Interstate Highway.  We have a homeless problem due to other municipalities busing their homeless to our city.  All of these ties right into what I just noted.  

Badly educated people are a major social problem that ends up being a burden on emergency services.  

The "I don't want to be taxed" movement really came about, no matter how it is thinly intellectually justified, as property taxes have risen significantly in the state in recent years.  The reasons are several fold, one simply being that county assessors falsely suppressed raising them, as property values raised, as they're elected officers and they were chicken about it. The State, which has the duty to distribute the taxes, finally got after them to do t heir jobs, and they've been having to do them. That's raised taxes.

Another is that a certain attitude in the state has encouraged people to move in, although a large number move right back out. Those who move in are largely older, having made their lives elsewhere, and having educated their children elsewhere. They sold their houses high in those places, where they should have stayed, and don't want to pay for anything here. Additionally, a lot of these people have real populist views, and would be just fine with not educating anyone in their declining years as they'll be dead as a door nail when current children become ignorant voters themselves.

For that matter, some of the recent imports have washed up from regions where education in particular is lacking.  This is particularly the case for people who have come up from the South.  Steeped in a sort of ignorance themselves, they aren't thinking things through, and regard education as some sort of left wing conspiracy. This has unfortunately seeped into American conservatism itself, and is now sort of a rallying cry.

Property taxes are rising just because of people like this.  They sell out their homes for a pile, and then come here and buy new ones at inflated prices.

I'd really like to know what these people would propose to cut, if we didn't have the property taxes.  They likely have no idea. The same people who would cut property taxes would go to a city council meeting and complain about a pothole, which is filled, basically, with money from property taxes.

Property taxes are, moreover, more fair than people suppose. If you have property, you have means. It's telling that these complaints come from old people, not young couples. Renters aren't paying property taxes.  And if the property taxes are too high, it may mean you exceeded your means, or you have multiple properties.  In the latter case, sell one, that will reduce property values and help distribute the scarce resource. 

Footnotes.

1.  A relative of mine uses this quote frequently, which is where I heard the first part of it.

I looked Wolff up, and he is an academic Marxist, which I'm not in any sense.  Marxism is proven murderous crap. But the quote is not without merit.  Every democratic society has governments which do a lot of stuff, and by and large the public really likes the stuff it does if it benefits from it, and doesn't if somebody else does.  Some of the most subsidized industries in the US completely fail to realize that and their members loudly complain about the government.  Trucking is, for example, a prime example.

Labels: 

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 7. What would that look like, and why would it fix anything, other than limiting my choices and lightening my wallet? Wouldn't every one be just bored and poor?

 

His life will grow out of the ground like the other lives of the place, and take its place among them. He will be with them - neither ignorant of them, nor indifferent to them, nor against them - and so at last he will grow to be native-born. That is, he must reenter the silence and the darkness, and be born again.

Wendell Berry, A Native Hill.

So we've gone through this and lamented on the state of the world.

We looked at how working for largely local businesses, in an economy in which most were local, would work, in terms of economics.

In other words, if you needed an appliance, and went to Wally's Appliance Store, owned and operated by Wally, rather than Walmart, owned and operated by anonymous corporate shareholders, how would that look?

And we looked at something more radical yet, Agrarianism.

So how does this all tie together, and what difference would it really make?

Let's revisit the definition of Agrarianism.

Given the above, isn't Agrarianism simply agricultural distributism?

Well, no.

Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society

Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.

Agrarianism is agriculture oriented on an up close and personal basis, and as such, it's family oriented, and land ethic oriented.

We also noted that agrarianism as we define it incorporates The Land Ethic, which holds:

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold.

So what would this mean to society at large, and a distributist society at that?

To start with, it would mean a lot more family farm operations, and no remotely owned and operated ones where the land was held by Bill Gates or the Chinese Communist Party. Combined with Distributism, it would also mean a lot more local processing of agricultural products.  Local packing houses, local flour mills, local bakeries.

It would also mean a society that was focused on local ownership of homes with residents who lived a more local, land ethic focused, lives.

Indeed, the local would matter much more in general.

And with it, humanity.

There would still be the rich and the poor, but not the remote rich and the ignorable poor.

Most people would be in the middle, and most of them, owning their own. They'd be more independent in that sense, and therefore less subject to the whims of remote employers, economic interests, and politicians.

All three major aspects of Catholic Social Teaching, humanity, subsidiarity, and solidarity, coming together.

An agrarian society would be much less focused on "growth", if focused on it at all.  Preservation of agricultural and wild lands would be paramount.  People would derive their social values in part from that, rather than the host of panem et circenses distractions they now do, or at least they could. 

They'd derive their leisure from it as well, and therefore appreciate it more.  If hiking in a local park, or going fishing, or being outdoors in general is what we would do, and we very much would as the big mega entertainment sources of all types are largely corporate in nature, preservation of the wild would be important.  

And this too, combined with what we've noted before, a distributist society and a society that was well-educated, would amount to a radical, and beneficial, reorientation of society.

We won't pretend that such a society would be prefect.  That would be absurd.  Human nature would remain that. All the vices that presently exist, still would, but with no corporate sources to feed them, they'd not grow as prominent.

And we will state that it would cure many of the ills that now confront us.

Such a society would force us to confront our nature and nature itself.  And to do so as a party of a greater community, for our common good.

Which, if we do not end up doing, will destroy us in the end.

Last prior:

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 6. Politics


Directly related:

Finis

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 6. Politics

James Monroe.  

And, yes, we're still not on to the Agrarian finale in this series.  That's because we have one more important topic to consider first.

Politics.

If you read distributists' social media, and you probably don't, you'll see that some people have the namby pamby idea that if we all just act locally everything will fall in line.  While people should act locally, that's a bunch of crap.

What these people don't realize is that politically, we're a corporate capitalist society, and we are where we are right now, in large part due to that.  Corporations are a creature of the state, not of nature, and exists as a legal fiction because the state says they do.  This is deemed, in our imaginations, to be necessarily because, . . . well it is.

Or rather, it's deemed to be necessary as we believe we need every more consolidation and economies of scale.  

We really don't, and in the end, it serves just itself.  We do need some large entities, particularly in manufacturing, which would actually bring us back to the original allowance for corporate structure, which was quite limited.  Early in US history, most corporations were banned from being created.

Legally, they would not need to be banned now, but simply not allowed to form except for actual needs.  And when very large, the Theodore Roosevelt proposal that they be treated like public utilities, or alternatively some percentage of their stock or membership would vest in their employees, would result in remedying much of the ills that they've created.

Likewise, eliminating the absurd idea that they can use their money for influence in politics could and should be addressed.

Which would require changes in the law.

And that takes us back to politics.

Nearly every living American, and Canadian for that matter, would agree that a major portion of the problems their nations face today are ones manufactured by politics.  The current economic order, as noted, is politically vested.

The United States has slid into a political decline of epic proportions, and its noteworthy that this came about after Ronald Reagan attacked and destroyed the post 1932 economic order which provided for an amplified type of American System in which there was, in fact, a great deal of involvement in the economy and the affairs of corporations, as well as a hefty income tax on the wealth following the country's entry into World War Two.  It's never been the case, of course, that there was a trouble free political era although interestingly, there was a political era which is recalled as The Era of Good Feelings due to its lack of political strife.  

That era lasted a mere decade, from 1815 to 1825, but it's instructive.

The Era of Good Feelings came about after the War of 1812, which was a war that not only caused internal strife, but which risked the dissolution of the nation.  Following the war the Federalist Party collapsed thereby ending the bitter disputes that had characterized its fights with the more dominant Democratic-Republican Party.. . . . huh. . . 

Anyhow, President James Monroe downplayed partisan affiliation in his nominations, with the ultimate goal of affecting national unity and eliminating political parties altogether.

Borrowing a line from the Those Were the Days theme song of All In the Family, "Mister we could use a man like James Monroe again".

Political parties have had a long and honorable history in politics. They've also had a long and destructive one.  Much of their role depends upon the era.  In our era, for a variety of reasons, they are now at the hyper destructive level.

They are, we would note, uniquely subject to the influence of money, and the fringe, which itself is savvy to the influence of money.  And money, now matter where it originates from, tends to concentrate uphill if allowed to, and it ultimately tends to disregard the local.

"All politics is local" is the phrase that's famously attached to U.S. politics, but as early as 1968, according to Andrew Gelman, that's declined, and I agree with his observation.  Nowhere is that more evident than Wyoming.

In Wyoming both the Republican and the Democratic Party used to be focused on matters that were very local, which is why both parties embraced in varying degrees, The Land Ethic, and both parties, in varying degrees, embraced agriculture.  It explains why in the politics of the 70s and 80s the major economic driver of the state, the oil and gas industry, actually had much less influence than it does now.

Things were definitely changing by the 1980s, with money, the love of which is the root of all evil, being a primary driver.  Beyond that, however, technology played a role.  The consolidation of industry meant that employers once headquartered in Casper, for instance, moved first to Denver, then to Houston, or were even located in Norway. As the love of money is the root of all evil, and the fear of being poor a major personal motivator, concern for much that was local was increasingly lost.

The increasing broad scope of the economy, moreover, meant that there were economic relocations of people who had very little connection with the land and their state.  Today's local Freedom Caucus in the legislature, heavily represented by those whose formative years were out of state, is a primary example in the state.  Malevolent politics out of the south and the Rust Belt entered the state and are battled out in our legislature even though they have little to do with local culture, lands or ethics.

Moreover, since 1968 the Democratic Party has gone increasingly leftward, driven at first by the impacts of the 1960s and then by its left leaning elements.  It in turn became anti-democratic, relying on the Supreme Court to force upon the nation unwanted social change, until it suddenly couldn't rely on the Court anymore, at which time it rediscovered democracy.  At the same time Southern and Rust Belt Populists, brought into the Republican Party by Ronald Reagan, eventually took it over and are now fanatically devoted to anti-democratic mogul, Donald Trump, whose real values, other than the love of money and a certain sort of female appearance, is unknown, none of which maters to his fanatic base as they apply the Führerprinzip to his imagined wishes and he responds.

We know, accordingly, have a Congress that's completely incapable of doing anything other than banning TikTok.

Distributism by design, and Agrarianism by social reference, both apply Catholic Social Teaching, one intentionally and one essentially as it was already doing that before Catholic Social Teaching was defined.  As we've discussed elsewhere, Catholic Social Teaching applies the doctrines of Human Dignity, Solidarity and Subsidiarity.  Solidarity, as Pope John Paul II describe it In Sollicitudo rei socialis, is not “a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of others. It is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good”.  Subsidiarity provides that that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.

We are a long ways from all of that, right now.

Politically, we're in a national political era that is violently opposed to solidarity and subsidiarity.  Supposed national issues and imagined remote conspiracies, dreamt up by political parties, swamp real local issues.  Global issues, in contract, which require a competent national authority, or even international authority, to deal with, cannot get attention as the masses are distracted by buffoons acting like Howler Monkeys.

Destroying the parties would serve all of this.  And that's a lot easier to do than might be supposed.

And more difficult.

Money makes it quite difficult, in fact.  But it can be done.

The easiest way to attack this problem is to remove political parties as quasi official state agencies, which right now the GOP and Democratic Party are.  Both parties have secured, in many states, state funded elections which masquerade as "primary elections" but which are actually party elections.  There's utterly no reason whatsoever that the State of Wyoming, for example, should fund an internal Republican election, or a Democratic one.

Primary elections are quite useful, but not in the fashion that most state's have them.  A useful example is Alaska's, whose system was recently proposed for Wyoming, but which was not accepted (no surprise).  Interestingly, given as the state's two actual political parties right now are the Trumpites and the Republican remnants, this a particularly good, and perhaps uniquely opportune, time to go to this system.  And that system disregard party affiliations.

Basically, in that type of election, the top two vote getters in the primary go on to the general election irrespective of party.  There doesn't need to be any voter party affiliation. The public just weeds the number of candidates down.

That is in fact how the system works here already, and in many places for local elections. But it should be adopted for all elections.  If it was, the system would be much different.

For example, in the last House Race, Harriet Hageman defeated Lynette Grey Bull, taking 132,206 votes to Gray Bull's 47,250.  Given the nature of the race, FWIW, Gray Bull did much better than people like to imagine, taking 25% of the vote in an overwhelmingly Republican state.  Incumbent Lynn Cheney was knocked out of the race in the primary, being punished for telling the truth about Ð”ональд "The Insurrectionist" Trump.  But an interesting thing happens if you look at the GOP primary.

In that race, Harriet Hageman took 113,079 votes, for 66% of the vote, and Cheney took 49,339, for 29%.  Some hard right candidates took the minor balance. Grey Bull won in the primary with just 4,500 votes, however.

I'd also note here that Distributism in and of itself would have an impact on elections, as it would have a levelling effect on the money aspect of politics.  Consider this article by former Speaker of the House Tom Lubnau:

Tom Lubnau: Analyzing The Anonymous Mailers Attacking Chuck Gray


A person could ask, I suppose, of how this is an example, but it is.

Back to the Gray v. Nethercott race, Ms. Nethercott is a lawyer in a regional law firm. That's not distributist as I'd have it, as I'd provide that firms really ought to be local, as I discussed in yesterday's riveting installment.   But it is a regional law firm and depending upon its business model, she's likely responsible for what she brings in individually.  Indeed, the claim made during the race that she wanted the job of Secretary of State for a raise income was likely absurd.

But the thing here is that Nethercott, as explained by Lubnau, raised a total of $369,933, of which $304,503 were from individual donations.  That's a lot to spend for that office, but it was mostly donated by her supporters.

In contrast, Jan Charles Gray, Chuck Gray's father donated a total of $700,000 to Chuck Gray’s campaign, Chuck Gray donated $10,000 to his own campaign and others donated $25,994.

$700,000 is a shocking amount for that office, but beyond that, what it shows is that Nethercott's supporters vastly out contributed Gray's, except for Gray's father.  In a distributist society, it certainly wouldn't be impossible to amass $700,000 in surplus cash for such an endeavor, but it would frankly be much more difficult.

To conclude, no political system is going to convert people into saints.  But it's hard to whip people into a frenzy who are your friends and neighbors than it does people who are remote.  And its harder to serve the interest of money if the money is more widely distributed. Put another way, it's harder to tell 50 small business owners that that Bobo down in Colorado knows what she's talking about, than 50 people who depend on somebody else for a livelihood a myth.

Last prior:

A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 5. What would that look like, and why would it fix anything, other than limiting my choices and lightening my wallet? The Distributist Impact


So, having published this screed over a period of days, and then dropping the topic, we resume with the question.

Why, exactly, do you think this would do a darn thing?

Well, here's why.

A daily example.

When I started this entry on Monday, March 4, I got up, fixed coffee and took the medication I'm now required to as I'm 60 years old, and the decades have caught up with me. The pills are from a locally owned pharmacy, I'd note, not from a national chain, so I did a distributist thing there.  It's only one block away, and I like them. Distributism.

I toasted a bagel, as in my old age the genetic "No" for adults consuming milk has caught up with me.  I got that at Albertson's and I don't know where the bagels are made.  Albertson's is a national chain that's in the process of trying to merge with another national chain. Corporate Capitalism.

The coffee was Boyers, a Colorado outfit. Quasi distributist there.

I put cream cheese on the bagel.  It was the Philadelphia brand. Definitely corporate capitalist there.

I'd already shaved (corporate capitalist, but subsidiarity makes that make sense).

I got dressed and headed to work.  My car was one I bought used, but its make is one that used to be sold by a locally owned car dealer.  No more. The manufacturers really prefer regional dealers, and that's what we have.  All the cars we have come from the dealer when it was locally owned.

I don't have that option anymore.  Corporate Capitalism.

In hitting the highway, I looked up the highway towards property owned by a major real estate developer/landlord.  A type of corporate capitalism.

I drove past some churches and the community college on the way in. Subsidiarity.

I drove past one of the surviving fraternal clubs.  Solidarity.

I drove past the major downtown churches.  Solidarity.

I drove past a collection of small stores, and locally owned restaurants adn bars, and went in the buildings.  Distributism.

I worked the day, occasionally dealing with the invading Colorado or other out of state firms.  Corporate Capitalism.

I reversed my route, and came home.

So, in this fairly average day, in a Western midsized city, I actually encountered a fair number of things that would be absolutely the same in a Distributist society.  But I encountered some that definitely ran very much counter to it.

Broadening this out.

A significant thing was just in how I ate.  And I eat a lot more agrarian than most people do.

The meat in our freezer was either taken by me in the field, or a cow of our own that was culled.  Most people cannot say that. But all the other food was store bought, and it was all bought from a gigantic national chain.  In 1924 Casper had 72 grocers, and it was less than a quarter of its present size.  In 1925, just one year later, it had 99 grocery stores.  The number fell back down to 70 in 1928.

August 1923 list of grocers in Casper that sold Butternut Coffee, which was probably every grocer.

When I was a kid, the greater Casper area had Safeway, Albertson's, Buttreys and an IGA by my recollection, in the national chains.  Locally, however, it had six local grocery stores, including one in the neighboring town of Mills.  One located right downtown, Brattis' was quite large, as was another one located in North Casper.

Now the entire area has one local grocery store and it's a specialty store.

Examples like this abound.  We have a statewide sporting goods store and a local one, but we also have a national one.  The locals are holding their own.  When I was young there was a locally owned store that had actually been bought out from a regional chain, and a national hardware store that sold sporting goods.  So this hasn't changed a lot.

And if we go to sporting goods stores that sell athletic equipment, it hasn't either. We have one locally owned one and used to have two. We have one national chain, and used to have none.

In gas stations, we have a locally owned set of gas stations and the regional chains.  At one time, we only had local stores, which were franchises. The local storefronts might be storefronts, in the case of the national chains, as well.

When I was a kid, the only restaurants that were national were the fast food franchises, which had competition from local outfits that had the same sort of fare and setting.  The locals burger joints are largely gone, save for one I've never been to and which is a "sit down" restaurant, and we have national and regional restaurant chains.  We retain local ones as well.  

We don't have any chain bars, which I understand are a thing, and local brewing, killed off by Prohibition, has come roaring back.

We used to have a local meat processing plant that was in fact a regional one, taking in cattle from the area, and packing it and distributing it back out, including locally.  There are no commercial packing plants in Wyoming now.  The closest one, I think, is in Greeley Colorado, and the packing industry is highly concentrated now.

We don't have a local creamery, either.  We had one of those at least into the 1940s, and probably well beyond that.  The milk for that establishment was supplied by a dairy that was on the south side of town.  It's no longer that and hasn't been for my entire life.

We've been invaded by the super huge law firms that are not local.

Our hospital is part of a private chain now, and there's massive discontent. That discontent took one of the county commissioners that was involved in the transfer of that entity out of county hands down in the last election.  But that hasn't arrested the trend.  My doctor, who I really like is part of a regional practice, not his own local one, anymore.  This trend is really strong.

And then there's Walmart, the destroyer of locally owned stores of every variety.

So would distribution make anything different?

The question is asked by a variant of Wendell Berry's "what are people for", but in the form of "what is an economy for?".

It's to serve people, and to serve them in their daily lives, as people.

It's not to make things as cheap as possible.

On all of the retail things I've mentioned, every single one could be served by local retail stores.  If we didn't have Albertson's, Riddleys and Smith's, we'd have a lot of John Albertson & Son's, Bill Riddley & Family, and Emiliano Smith's stores, owned by their families.  If Walmart didn't exist, and moreover couldn't exist, it would be replaced locally, probably by a half dozen family owned retailers. . . or more.

Prices would in fact be higher, although there would be competition, but the higher prices would serve families who operated them, and by extension the entire community.  And this is just one example.  

Much of the old infrastructure in fact remains.  As discussed above, numerous small businesses remain, and according to economic statistics, small business remains the number one employer in the US.  But the fact is that giant chain corporations have made a devastating impact on the country, making all local business imperiled and some practically impossible to conduct.

Reversing that would totally reorient the local economy.  Almost everyone would work for themselves, or for a locally owned business, owned by somebody they knew personally, and who knew them personally.

And with that reorientation, would come a reorientation of society.

We'll look at that a bit later.  Let's turn towards the agrarian element next.

Last Prior:

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 4. A Well Educated Society.

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 4. A Well Educated Society.

Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.

Thomas Sowell

Civilization is not inherited; it has to be learned and earned by each generation anew; if the transmission should be interrupted for one century, civilization would die, and we should be savages again.

Will and Ariel Durant

A democratic society, let alone a just, functioning society, can't survive or function without its citizens being solidly educated.  And that means learning things you (or your parents), don't want you to, and some will fall behind, and drop out.

In envisioning how a more just society, in every fashion, and one that comports with reality, might be constructed, we have to concede that it can't be if people operate in a state of ignorance.

Unfortunately, we live in a manifestly ignorant age.  This year's national political contest is ample evidence of that.  On one side we have a body that's contemptuous of human nature and thinks it can be existentially and individually remade.  On the other, we have a group that effectively assumes that everything that came after 1958 is existentially wrong, including every real advance in science or knowledge.

We let one generation somehow proceed into barbarity, and it's running the show right now.  As part of that, one of its pet projects is to create a system where younger generations can be prevented from being educated in anything that suggest that it's really not 1958.

Getting back on track won't be easy, but it needs to be accomplished immediately.

Now first of all, we have to admit that this is not universal by any means. Contrary to what people like to assert, and often the poorly educated, there's no one educational system in the US and therefore there are school districts that are excellent. Wyoming has long been blessed by those, but even in Wyoming, modern inroads of limited education are advancing.

All of this may seem bold when we consider that high school graduation rates and university education is much more common than it used to be.  The national high school graduation rate is 87%, which is massively high. The Wyoming rate is 82%.  Consider this chart, for a moment (which will be hotlinked to its source).

Table 110.High school graduates, by sex and control of school: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2019-20
School yearHigh school graduatesAveraged freshman graduation rate for public schools3Population 17 years old4Graduates as a ratio of 17-year-old population
Total1SexControl
MalesFemalesPublic2Private
TotalMalesFemalesTotal
1234567891011
1869-7016,0007,0648,936 815,0002.0
1879-8023,63410,60513,029 946,0262.5
1889-9043,73118,54925,18221,88221,8495 1,259,1773.5
1899-190094,88338,07556,80861,73733,1465 1,489,1466.4
1909-10156,42963,67692,753111,36345,0665 1,786,2408.8
            
1919-20311,266123,684187,582230,90280,3645 1,855,17316.8
1929-30666,904300,376366,528591,71975,1855 2,295,82229.0
1939-401,221,475578,718642,7571,143,246538,273604,97378,2295 2,403,07450.8
1949-501,199,700570,700629,0001,063,444505,394558,050136,2565 2,034,45059.0
1959-601,858,023895,000963,0001,627,050791,426835,624230,973 2,672,00069.5
            
1969-702,888,6391,430,0001,459,0002,588,6391,285,8951,302,744300,0005 78.73,757,00076.9
1970-712,937,6421,454,0001,484,0002,637,6421,309,3191,328,323300,0005 78.03,872,00075.9
1971-723,001,5531,487,0001,515,0002,699,5531,342,2751,357,278302,0005 77.43,973,00075.5
1972-733,034,8221,500,0001,535,0002,728,8221,352,4161,376,406306,0005 76.84,049,00075.0
1973-743,073,3141,512,0001,561,0002,763,3141,362,5651,400,749310,0005 75.44,132,00074.4
            
1974-753,132,5021,542,0001,591,0002,822,5021,391,5191,430,983310,0005 74.94,256,00073.6
1975-763,142,1201,552,0001,590,0002,837,1291,401,0641,436,065304,991 74.94,272,00073.6
1976-773,139,5361,551,0001,589,0002,837,340302,196 74.44,272,00073.5
1977-783,128,8241,546,0001,583,0002,824,636304,188 73.24,286,00073.0
1978-793,101,1521,532,0001,569,0002,801,152300,0005 71.94,327,00071.7
            
1979-803,042,2141,503,0001,539,0002,747,678294,536 71.54,262,00071.4
1980-813,020,2851,492,0001,528,0002,725,285295,0005 72.24,212,00071.7
1981-822,994,7581,479,0001,515,0002,704,758290,0005 72.94,134,00072.4
1982-832,887,6041,426,0001,461,0002,597,604290,0005 73.83,962,00072.9
1983-842,766,7972,494,797272,0005 74.53,784,00073.1
            
1984-852,676,9172,413,917263,0005 74.23,699,00072.4
1985-862,642,6162,382,616260,0005 74.33,670,00072.0
1986-872,693,8032,428,803265,0005 74.33,754,00071.8
1987-882,773,0202,500,020273,0005 74.23,849,00072.0
1988-892,743,7432,458,800284,943 73.43,842,00071.4
            
1989-902,574,1622,320,337253,8256 73.63,505,00073.4
1990-912,492,9882,234,893258,095 73.73,417,91372.9
1991-922,480,3992,226,016254,3836 74.23,398,88473.0
1992-932,480,5192,233,241247,278 73.83,449,14371.9
1993-942,463,8492,220,849243,0005 73.13,442,52171.6
            
1994-952,519,0842,273,541245,543 71.83,635,80369.3
1995-962,518,1092,273,109245,0005 71.03,640,13269.2
1996-972,611,9882,358,403253,585 71.33,792,20768.9
1997-982,704,0502,439,0501,187,6471,251,403265,0005 71.34,008,41667.5
1998-992,758,6552,485,6301,212,9241,272,706273,025 71.13,917,88570.4
            
1999-20002,832,8442,553,8441,241,6311,312,213279,0005 71.74,056,63969.8
2000-012,847,9732,569,2001,251,9311,317,269278,773 71.74,023,68670.8
2001-022,906,5342,621,5341,275,8131,345,721285,0005 72.64,023,96872.2
2002-033,015,7352,719,9471,330,9731,388,974295,788 73.94,125,08773.1
2003-047 3,054,4382,753,4381,347,8001,405,638301,0005 74.34,113,07474.3
            
2004-053,106,4992,799,2501,369,7491,429,501307,249 74.74,120,07375.4
2005-063,122,5442,815,5441,376,4581,439,086307,0005 73.44,200,55474.3
2006-073,198,9562,892,3511,413,7381,478,613306,605 73.94,297,23974.4
2007-083,313,8182,999,5081,466,3031,533,205314,3105 74.74,436,95574.7
2008-098 3,318,7703,004,570314,200 74.74,336,95076.5
            
2009-108 3,306,2202,991,310314,910 75.64,311,83176.7
2010-118 3,251,7202,937,170314,550 
2011-128 3,221,9902,905,990316,000 
2012-138 3,200,1302,890,740309,390 
2013-148 3,176,3002,868,100308,200 
            
2014-158 3,170,5602,872,470298,090 
2015-168 3,201,0602,906,330294,730 
2016-178 3,223,0002,933,220289,780 
2017-188 3,273,6902,988,630285,060 
2018-198 3,265,0202,984,530280,490 
2019-208 3,245,9002,953,060292,840 
—Not available.

That's great, right?

Well, maybe.

But maybe not.

People have to know how to read statistics and what's behind them.  A really well-educated friend of mine who is in obviously very poor physical shape is an example of this.  HE takes his age, and likes to cite the "at my age, X% of men make it to age 90".

Well, that's because you kill off a certain percentage of men every year, meaning that your odds of making it to 90 are poorer every year.  At age 90 100% of men make it to age 90, if they've lived that long.  It's a diminishing number every year.

With education, the fact that 87% of people graduate from high school means, quite frankly, that extraordinary steps have been taken to make that occur. Some of the steps are good, some of them are bad, some of them are mixed. The rate itself, 87%, is pretty good proof that we run people through high school who really don't have the capacity to graduate a rigorous educational system.

As noted above, Wyoming's schools are very good.  I was stunned, for example, when my daughter was in high school, and she came home and prepared for a test of Weimar Germany that was unbelievably advanced.  This speaks well of our system.  Also speaking well of it is that it offers advanced certificates for high school degrees, something it did not do when I graduated there in 1981.

And frankly, our community college system is excellent as well.  We have only one university (which is another topic) but its good as well.

Still, I think it can be maintained that compared to the mid 20th Century, certain things have dropped off as mandatory subjects.  I have around here somewhere a German novel that was my father's, from high school, and a Latin primer that was one of my uncle's (from a much different school system).  There was a time when learning languages was mandatory in high school , and learning a language broadens out the welatanshung considerably, n'est pas?

One thing that had very much occured is the rise of homeschooling.  People have done this for a long time, but it was almost freakishly uncommon in most areas and often due to remoteness.  Starting in the 90s, however, it really grew for a variety of reasons.

One is that in some areas people lived in bad school districts where there was little opportunity for a good primary education.  But another one is that, particularly amongst Protestant Evangelicals, and then spreading to Catholic Trads, who ironically sometimes hold very Protestant Evangelical societal views, that the education system was educating the young in vice and perversity.  Most recently this has seen its expression by inroads onto school boards by populists who use names like "Mom's For Liberty" for their organizations.

What often characterizes these organizations is a desire to prevent education in something.  It started off as early in the 1960s with an effort to prevent education on matters sexual.  Interestingly, when I was in high school, in spite of living in the least religious state in the US, and one that has always had a rough and transient population, community standards remained so high that what there was in the way of sex ed was pretty minimal.  I can recall that when I was in grade school we were supposed to watch films in 5th and 6th Grade, just as we were hitting our early teens. We watched one of them, but it conveyed so little information that it was truly harmless in the extreme, much less harmful than the information that was later distributed on the playground about what the next installment, which we never saw, was supposed to contain (which was, I'd note, biologically inaccurate).  The next time this came up was in junior high, and then again in high school biology class, in which we were required to tell our parents they could opt us out.  Nobody did.  I think we received a day of education, or not more than two, on the topic, which was biological and accurate.

Of course, I grew up in the 70s for the most part, and most of the kids in school with me were locals.  That might have made a big difference, as even the poor kids were from pretty stable families.  Divorce was incredibly rare.  A significant minority were from ranching families who were well aware of how biological processes worked (that Agrarian thing again) and therefore the knowledge wasn't shocking.  As for the impact, I can recall five girls that I knew to some extent getting pregnant in high school, and one of them was married.  One of the other ones was from a family where that ran through it like wildfire.  The graduating class was 500 or so students, so that's not a huge number.

It's not just sex ed that caused the boom in alternative learning, however.  By the 1970s evolution was an established scientific fact, even if still termed a theory, and it was taught in our schools outright.  The resistance to it being taught, at that time, didn't seem to exist, but it rebounded strongly later on in much of the country.  Overall, moreover, a decline in science teaching set in the U.S. during the 1980s thanks to Ronald Reagan, whose administration didn't support it.

Indeed, the Reagan administration was big on local control of things, and that has an impact here. As a Distributist, it might seem that this is one of the areas where we'd be big backers of that sort of thing, but in reality, the principal of subsidiarity advocates doing a thing at its most local effective, efficient, and just level.  As knowledge is literally global, it calls for large scale.  Physics and science are the same in Brooklyn as they are in Botswana.

A person might also note that our sometimes romantic attachment to Agrarianism recalls a day when less than 50% of males graduated from high school. That's quite true, but they also lived in an age in which many of them had been already well armed by their educations for the lives they would lead, so it was not accurate to suggest they were uneducated.  One of my grandfathers left school (a Christian Brothers school) at age 13, and yet ran a business successfully and could do calculus.  A major office building in this city is named after a man who was sent here in his early teens to open a branch of his father's pipeyard business and who went on to become a multimillionaire.

Additionally, if we go way back, we'll find that yeomanry, while they could be completely uneducated, could also be relatively well educated as well. Some were educated in basic matters through local churches, but often they were educated through community funded or subscribed schools.  John Adams, who started off life as a yeoman, was educated in that fashion, and his wife ran such a school (integrated, we might note) later on.

While on it, we might as well additionally note that the American South, at least since sometime prior to the Civil War, has been a real backwater of education, something that used to horrify northerners.  Little noticed, however, is that there's been a mini Great Migration of white Southerners out of their native region and into the rest of the country, where they've brought their views, including about education, with them.

And part of this is the byproduct of the 1960s.  Up until the 60s, while education was massively uneven in a country that has no central education system, there was a general consensus on what a person needed to learn in order to graduate from high school.  That can't really be claimed from region to region anymore.

So here, applying the principal of subsidiarity, the national government really needs to take a hand and set some basic standards, including learning the truth on scientific and historic matters.  And it needs to be rigorous.  If that depresses the graduation rate, so be it.

And there's really not a moment to lose.

Last prior:

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 3. Agrarianism.

The irony.

 Same day, same paper. One ad celebrating agriculture, and one celebrating its destruction.