On Distributism

“THERE is such a thing as what we should call ideal Distributism; though we should not, in this vale of tears, expect Distributism to be ideal. . . . .

“We do not offer perfection; what we do offer is proportion. We wish to correct the proportions of the modern state; but proportion is between varied things; and proportion is hardly ever a pattern. It is as if we were drawing the picture of a living man and they thought we were drawing a diagram of wheels and rods for the construction of a Robot. We do not propose that in a healthy society all land should be held in the same way; or that all property should be owned on the same conditions; or that all citizens should have the same relation to the city. It is our whole point that the central power needs lesser powers to balance and check it, and that these must be of many kinds: some individual, some communal, some official and so on. Some of them will probably abuse their privilege; but we prefer the risk to that of the Sate or of the Trust, which abuses its omnipotence.”

~G.K. Chesterton: The Outline of Sanity, Pt. I, Ch. 4.—On a Sense of Proportion.