With the “nanny state” of Socialism, one does not have to worry about where the means of living will come from and, in that sense, one does not have to worry about being self-sufficient.  People are dependant on the state and that is the way they want it.  Independence and self-sufficiency are threats to the state. People are essentially slaves of the state.

The same can be said about Global Capitalism.  In this case, the corporation replaces the State as the provider.  The difference is how.  In the case of the corporation, wages and benefits are the control of the people.  Without these, many will be unable to provide for their families.

In addition, many of these same corporations provide the goods and services people need to survive.  And how to people pay for these goods and services? They pay with the same wages and benefits provided by the corporation.  This essentially makes the person another type of slave, a “wage slave”.

In either scenario, the person is a “slave” of one sort or another.  We need to return to a socio-economic model that allows a person to be their own provider if they want to. Distributism that is firmly ensconced in Catholic Moral and Social teaching provides the framework for this socio-economic model.

This cannot be forced on a person like Socialism and Global Capitalism has been, and is being, done. We must not let ourselves to be lowered to the level of Socialism and Global Capitalism, which are plagues of modern society.  We must, however, force our ideas into the public square to show that they are viable and, more importantly, desirable alternatives to the current, plague ridden, socio-economic models.

Boycotts are completely worthless without viable morally sound alternatives.  People simply cannot or will not do without certain goods and services.  And, in some cases, there are not alternatives for these due to the rampant plague of Global Capitalism consolidating the means of production in the hands of an increasing diminishing number of companies.

In addition, there would be no need for “boycotts” if there were many morally sound alternatives since many would gravitate to those without the need to call for “boycotts”.

We must look at either developing these alternative and/or breaking up the oligarchic and monopolistic control of production of Global Capitalism. That is, implement a socio-economic structure based on distributive principles based in Catholic Moral and Social teaching before it is impossible to do so.

One of the advantages of having many contacts on Facebook that are Distributists are that they post links to many interesting articles.  Many of them I cannot get to due to a busy schedule.

However, this morning a link to The Ruin of the Small Storekeeper by Hilaire Belloc over on ChesterBelloc Mandate was posted. In there, Belloc points out the moral and material sets of causes that work against the small storekeeper (i.e. the small business man).

The moral causes, in my opinion mostly can be categorized into one of the socio-economic plagues that are infecting society.  That plague is Materialism.  Many see the small storekeeper as inconvenient due to the fact that they cannot get all of their “so called needs” in one place and are “wasting time” by going to various different places.  I can see why one would believe this.

However, if one takes an inventory of their “needs” they would see many of them are “wants” not “needs”.  In addition, by going to places where one can “get everything in one place”, one tends to “get things” that they do not need since they are “conveniently there.”  This convenience explains the rise of the “megastores” and the “mall” or “mega shopping center”.

The second set, material” of clauses, in my opinion are more insidious since they actively against the “Small Storekeeper”.  They are the competitive advantages of the second socio-economic plague that infects society.  That plague is Global Capitalism (or big business).  Whether it be the “economies of scale”, “control of production”, and/or “preferential treatment” by banks and/or regulators, the Global Capitalist definitely has the advantage and uses it to either bring the “Small Storekeeper” under his control (i.e. franchise) or destroy them all together.  In either case, the “Small Storekeeper” is either reduced to a “wage slave” at the beckon call of his “master” the Global Capitalist or a slave of the State via welfare or employment.

Now, one can say that there are many “small stores” in the mall or along “Main Street”.  However, if one takes a close look, they are mostly either franchisees of global companies, sell products of the global companies, or sell goods that the global company has no desire to sell.  In all cases but the last, they are nothing more than the extension of the global company.  This is especially true of the stores in the mall.

Many will say that Global Capitalism is good.  I say it is just the opposite.  Except in the rare case, Global Capitalism is oppressive of those who want to compete in the same line of business, reduces people to wage slaves, and promotes the plague of Materialism.

We must look at our buying habits and determine if we really need the products and, if we do, try to find truly local “Small Shopkeepers” to buy those products.  Only then will we be able to crush the plagues that are infecting society.

As usual, I was at one of the local Borders tonight looking at possible books to buy. One of the books I have been looking at is Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization by Jeff Rubin.  The premise of his book is that oil is going to get consistently more costly due to it dwindling supply and we are going to have to look more locally for our needs.

While I agree that energy, especially oil, is going to get more expensive, I do not agree it will be because of dwindling supply.  There are too many alternatives, albeit more expense, alternative sources of oil that is being developed that will more than replace the supply of oil.  However, I digress.

There are many more reasons then just “oil” that may force localization whether people want it or not.  More and more, we are hearing in the news about tainted products from overseas where quality standards are lacking or non-existent.  This I have discussed before.

Secondly, are economic factors that are coming into play now due to the downturn in the economic health of the country?  How much longer are people going to let jobs be shipped overseas while people are losing their jobs?

However, there is another economic factor that may come into play, and that is the falling value of the dollar.  With the drop, imports become more expensive.  At some point, it will (and probably has in some cases) become cheaper to produce goods in the country rather than importing them.   This is going to become more of a factor if the drop in the dollar continues.

The third is more of a psychological than a real factor.  And that is the constant reports of new diseases or new strains of existing diseases.  Yes there is a threat there, but it may force a consideration of the risk factors of importing goods from the far reaches of the world.  Is it really worth importing goods that are more of a luxury than a necessity?

Finally, there are geo-political factors.  Many parts of the world are becoming very unstable.  This has always been an issue, however, where the geo-political problems are now could adversely affect the supply of oil, which, of course, will dramatically increase the price of energy.  This, in turn, will increase the costs of shipping and, ultimately, the final costs of goods that are imported.

There are other factors, but these are the major ones.  However, all of these will probably force people to look locally more and more for the goods needed to survive.

With this shift, many changes in lifestyles will have to be made.

We will have to look for local alternatives to goods like coffee, tea, and many fruits and vegetables that have become commonplace all year round.  Yes, some of these will be available fresh when they are in season.  However, when out of season, one will have to look for alternatives, use in preserved forms (i.e. frozen or cured), or do without.

We will also have to make changes in our leisure activities.  Traveling to exotic places whenever we want to will not be an option if travel becomes too expensive.  We will have to look locally for recreation.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  It may promote a greater sense of community.

Distributism, which I am an advocate of, looks to place the means of production of all goods at the most local level as possible.  However, it does not stop there, it promote the self-sufficiency of the family as much as possible while not promoting individualism.

An additional benefit, in my opinion, is that Distributism, in its purest form, is rooted in Catholic Moral and Social teachings.   Because of that, it can be used to rebuild a moral foundation to a society whose foundation has been rotting away from the ravages of the plagues of Relativism, Globalism (in the form of Global Capitalism), Materialism, Socialism, and Liberalism.

“Going Local” is not a bad thing.  In fact, it is a good thing since Global Capitalism is proving to be, like it opposite Socialism is proving to be a dismal failure.

1. Graduate School (thinking of getting advanced degrees in a number of disciples including Catholic Theology, History, and Economics)
2. Create a practical blueprint for the development of a self-sufficient Distributist community/society based on Catholic Moral and Social teachings
3. Research and document the progression of Catholic dogmatic and doctrinal teachings (concentrating on Catholic Moral and Social teachings) since the Council of Trent

I picked these three since they could be interrelated.  A graduate degree in Catholic Theology would help me with the other two while a degree in Economics would help me with the blueprint in number two.  My ultimate goal in all three of these endeavors, however, will probably go into teaching and/or writing.

In addition to the above, I would like to get back into web development that I have dabbled in before.  I could also this to document the above projects on-line.

Like I said, these are just a couple of the projects I am thinking of, it is just they are at the top of my list right not.  That may change.  Who knows?

When I talk about energy, I am not just talking about Electricity.  I am also talking about fuels to run vehicles and machinery, and to heat homes and businesses.  Yes, some, if not much, of this can be produced locally, but could it be enough to adequately and reliably serve the needs of any sizable population.

If there were a sufficient amount of natural resources like coal, oil, and/or natural gas, I guess the needed infrastructure could be created to utilize those resources.  But not all areas have those resources in any appreciable quantities.

That means that alternative resources have to be found.  Yes, wind and solar can be used, but they can be unreliable at best. If there were a way to store the produced electricity for any appreciable amount of time then maybe they could be a more viable option.

Biofuels are an option for fuels, however, at the present time, utilizes resources that are best left for their intended uses.  Saying that, there are a myriad of technologies being developed that will allow biofuels to be created from waste material, weed trees, and even algae that will produce better yields and varieties than what is currently produced from feedstock like corn and soybeans.  However, theses are either years away or are proprietary at the present time.  This means we would have to wait or rely on others for the technologies.

Now one can say that do we really need these types of energies to survive?  The answer is no, but are people willing to go back that far in time (even though it is really only about a century since much of this has been available to the populace).  In most cases, I would say it would be a resounding NO.

In conclusion, if the natural resources were available, then I would say that, yes, there is a greater possibility of creating a truly local society.  If there were not, I would say it would be hard, but not impossible, for those who are willing to go without.

There are other reasons that it would be hard to “go local”, but those are easier to overcome and subjects for future entries.

Right now, I am looking for ideas to aid in the development of a Distributist society.  One of the themes that run through both Distributism and the Catholic Land movements is that self-sufficiency. In Distributism, it is the ability of the person or family to earn a living that is not based solely on the state or working for a corporation.  In the Catholic Land movement, it is providing the basic needs of the family from the land as much as possible.

This got me to thinking that most of us do not even have even the basic skills, or even the knowledge, to provide even the most basic of needs from the land.  This gets me back to the topic of bookstores.  One of the genres of books I have been looking at is how to raise various crops and animals.  However, it has not stopped there.  I have also found books on how to produce almost everything one needs to survive off the land.  This include almost everything including how to generate you own energy and fuels.

Where I am going with this is simple, since Distributism and the Catholic Land movement put a premium on self-sufficiency, I am wondering how far should one go in this self-sufficiency.  The answer is all the way, but not in the sense that you may thing.  Yes, we should individually become self-sufficient as much as possible, but   community self-sufficiency should be more of the ultimate goal.  That is, the community must have the ability to be self-sustainable as much as possible without any outside help.

I believe that a community that is based on Distributist principles can, and must, develop all the skills possible to as self-contained as possible.  This skill-set must include everything from food production, to energy generation (heck, I even saw one book that showed how to make your own methane) , to health care, to education.

However, this does, and must not, mean that the community be separate from the world.  Far from it.  We must continue within the world to be an example on how to live.  Our Lord said:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.  Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 5: 14-16)

We must be that light not only to our community, but also to the world that is sorely needing of that light.

First, these types of zones are limited in scope.  They are, for the most part, either business or residential in nature.  They seldom look at the complete picture.  Even when they do look at both, it is not as a community, but only parts in an incomplete picture.  There is a no sense of true and complete community being developed. A Distributist Community Region would be a complete community that could sustain itself with very little, or no outside, help if the situation would arise.

The second is area affected.  I chose the term “Region” instead of zone because it denotes a larger area.  Usually, a zone is limited to a neighborhood, maybe two, at most.  A region denotes a much larger area and would include not only the residential and business areas, but also the surrounding agricultural area.  This expanded area also adds to the independence and sustainability of the community.

Finally, and probably most important is the region must adhere to Distributist principles which has its basis Catholic Moral and Social teachings.  That is, we must get back to a time where the God and family was the basic societal-economic unit.  With a family, one first learns social interaction and God provides the moral foundation for everyday life.  This has to be the basis for any type of community.  The “zones” mentioned about purposely leave out both.

I have purposely not provided any type of detail or blueprint here.  Just a basic vision I have.  Maybe, with the help of others, we can bring this vision to reality.

This got me to ponder, are we too dependent on modern technology.  In my opinion, the answer is most definitely.  Many of us would be completely lost without the modern conveniences.

The scary thing is that is a very recent phenomenon.  It was not too long ago, only a couple of decades, that computers had little or no presence in every day life.   Go back a decade or two further and computers are non-existent.   Yet, energy was generated, cars operated, manufacturing occurred, banks were open, and stores were stocked.  We have come to a point where we are so dependant on computers, most, if not all of this, will cease to exist.

This gets me to the point I am trying to make.  We need to look at everything in our lives and see where we can, if possible, find alternatives to our current way of life.  If available and viable, we need to reverse the technological trend in products (i.e. cars), production (i.e. robotics), and even retail (i.e. computers for cash registers).

Even in our everyday life.  We need to be ready, or even replace, with alternatives that rely on electricity and computers.  We do not need “smart homes”.  We can get by with manually turning lights on and off.  Have, where possible, alternative for heating, cooking, and lighting and use them.  In addition, have the ability to generate electricity via solar and wind, even it is for minimal usage, that do not rely on computers to regulate the flow (I know this is possible but not how to do this).  We must learn how to grow, process, and store our own food.  Heck, with the right ingredients, we can make our own soap.

I would also go as far as to say, it might be advantageous to set up whole communities that are as far off the grid as possible as available sanctuaries in case of such a catastrophic event would occur.

What I am saying is that, we need to evaluate and wean ourselves out of the technology age as much as possible in order to be able to survive.  Even if it does not happen, the simplification of one’s life will be an improvement over what we have now.  And this is coming from one who is in a computer related career.

I am an active member on Facebook and one of my friends posted Nine Steps Towards Family Food Security by Robert Waldrop from the ChesterBelloc Mandate.  In the entry, the following nine suggestions are made:

1. Grow some of your own food.
2. Eat with the season.
3. Buy directly from farmers.
4. Learn to process foods.
5. Learn many things. Practice many skills. Teach others.
6. Make your own snacks.
7. Help the local food coop’s reach even more people.
8. Work together with neighbors and friends.
9. Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

I modified #7 since it referred (along with #3) to a specific food coop.  However, what is contained there could be applied to other food coop’s in your area.  Mainly, the solutions are practical ways to modify one’s life to not only be more self sufficient, but also help the local economy.