Monday, December 12, 2011
Rick raises several compelling questions concerning how contemporary and earlier advocacy on behalf of "distributism," as an alternative to both socialism and capitalism, should be approached and evaluated. I don't know of any single author whose work has remotely begun to cover the field, but lawyer Christopher Ferrara has made many fine and sound contributions, the quality of which can be glimpsed in his recent essay here. Ferrara's observations about the nature of the *reasons* individuals and societies have to make the required transitions from virtually unbridled capitalism to distributism return us to those more funadmental questions (which I've been raising here on MOJ) concerning what happens when we mistakenly consider the Constitution -- rather than the divine natural law and the law of the Gospel -- to be the "supreme law of the land." Again, my denying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land does not commit me to "judicial activism" of the sort I'm sometimes accused of advocating. My views on what our federal judges, for example, are licensed to do is really quite strict and disciplined (cf. my disagreements with Hadley Arkes)! The point is that recognizing the *truly* higher law for what it is calls the rest of the law into question, in a way that must be resolved *lawfully*, naturally.