Dear Raulito, please give a message to our new President if you see her.

Well, Raulito, this arrest of the Women in White is not good news. That's fidelista stuff and we need to turn over a new leaf. While you are at it, I suggest you go ahead and cut loose all 75 of the dissident husbands.

We want a new level of tolerance to go along with our distributism. After all, I'll bet when each of those husbands gets his own little plot of land, gardening will become more interesting that protest and with all of the changes you will be making, there will be little to protest against.

I know, I know, George W. and his predecessor have their own violations. I have met with protesters who spent six months in the Federal Prisons for protesting at the School of the Americas.

And of course the Berrigan Brothers. And all of those conscientious objectors.

And then there are those reservists and soldiers who change their minds about going to Iraq. Some were recruited as minors.

I sometimes teach with one of Mumia Abu Jamal's lawyers.

Yes, Raulito, it is true, the Human Rights Watch faults the United States for Guantanamo, torture, secret prisons, detainee abuse, incarcerating a bigger percentage of the our population than anywhere else, death penalty, juvenile life without parole and abusing the rights of non-citizens. Whew.

Cuba, though, appears to have the worst record in Latin America. You have the death penalty and bad prison conditions like us, but Human Rights Watch gives you bad grades on other things:

Cuba remains the one country in Latin America that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. There have been no significant policy changes since Fidel Castro relinquished direct control of the government to his brother Raul Castro in August 2006. The government continues to enforce political conformity using criminal prosecutions, long-term and short-term detentions, mob harassment, police warnings, surveillance, house arrests, travel restrictions, and politically-motivated dismissals from employment. The end result is that Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, privacy, movement, and due process of law.

I highlighted that second sentence, because I want you to know everyone is hoping you will show Fidel how it's done.

I also know that George W. has been unwilling to talk to you, but maybe a little more distributism and some fewer long-term and short detentions will make it less embarrassing to hang out with you.

Hillary and Obama have both said they (with conditions) they will talk to you. And Nixon went to China; so maybe McCain would work things out with you.

If you see any of them, would you mention the problems we have with people drowning trying to cross the river near Brownsville and the tent city in Raymondville and all of these death penalty prosecutions in Brownsville. We could really use some help.

Raulito Supports Private Home Ownership!

Raulito has taken the next step upward into distributism. The Cuban government yesterday passed regulations that acknowledge the right of state workers to live long term in their houses and pass them to relatives after their death.

The New York Times opines, "The decision seemed to inch property rights forward...." The newspaper does offer the move "stopped well short of allowing the unfettered purchase and sale of private homes."

(Raulito: please note the new posting for a blogsite devoted to the ChesterBelloc Mandate. I am just beginning to review it and we need not swallow the whole pill, but we can seek some guidance. I do note an unnecessary hostility to Darwin, so we may have to rewrite or challenge certain parts).

Now, Raulito, that we have moved toward private ownership of land, what should that ownership look like? Should we move to the "unfettered purchase and sale of private homes?" What if, for instance, Walmart was not satisfied with a mere monopoly of retail sales and jobs and decided to buy up all the houses. They certainly could go a long way in that direction. Would that "unfettered purchase and sale" be OK?

I think, Raulito, you may want to prohibit corporate ownership of land.

Maybe short-term corporate ownership would be OK until a house is finished and may be sold, but long term ownership would be dangerous. I mean, given a chance, corporations could buy up all the water, oil and gas and air. Yeah, I know corporations owning the air may seem funny, but remember when potable water came from the tap and you did not have to buy it from the Coca Cola Company?

Certainly, anyone actually living in a house should have a valid title and anyone buying a house with the intention of living in it should be able to take valid title.

It would also seem reasonable that until everyone had someplace to live, no one should have three or four houses.

The government exercises claims for eminent domain to take title to property they want. Just ask all those folks who are about to get a wall through their backyards. The government can even now exercise eminent domain for the benefit of private building projects. (Kelo v. City of New London).

Why can't we have restrictive covenants in deeds allowing transfer based on human needs? I mean, we have them for all types of other silly things like, brick versus wood siding and wooden versus hurricane fencing. We used to allow them to keep out unpopular races. We still use them to keep out children. (Can this possibly be Right?)

Why not establish some principles of private ownership of land and houses: Human beings over corporations. Children, handicapped and infirm over healthy adults. Habitation over commercial use. Homeless over summer house. Bigger houses for big families, smaller houses for smaller families. Something along those lines.

I know this is very vague, but my hunch is that some real estate lawyer legislative draftsman type has already figured out how to do it.

Then allow a human being to file for human eminent domain.

Hang in there, Raulito, I am sure you and me and our fellow distributionists can figure this all out.

Communist Cuba Dabbling in Distributism

Bloggers (the few I have met and as best I can tell from reading) seem endlessly fascinated by whether and if so, how much, their blog is being read. I confess this fault. I put one of the free counters on the blog and it is something of a utilometer of my personal happiness. Each little tick of the counter is another little squirt of dopamine.

More sophisticated bloggers apparently have more sophisticated counters and get additional squirts from learning how widely read they are, based on area codes I guess.

I know this all runs counter to my blogging goal as taken from the Granddaddy of All Bloggers:

"I have no thought of serving either you or my own glory. My powers are inadequate for such a purpose. I have dedicated it to the private convenience of my relatives and friends, so that when they have lost me (as soon they must), they may recover here some features of my habits and temperament. Thus reader...you would be unreasonable to spend your leisure on so frivoulous and vain pursuit."

Indulge my pride, though as a tell you based on certain empirical evidence I have a celebrity reader. It was only Friday past when I urged an economic system based on medieval Catholicism, distributism. Two days later, I see the headlines, "Cuba to Lend Land--In a bid to boost agricultural production, Raul Castro's government is lending Cuba's unused land to private farmers and cooperatives."

It is obvious to me: Raul Castro has been reading my blog. Not only that, I have converted him to distributism. Let me say it again: RAUL CASTRO IS ONE OF MY READERS!!!!

Now it is important I carefully cultivate this first new convert to distributism. First, how to address him? We distributists are anti-hierarchical and I hardly think either Mr. President or General Castro are appropriate.

Nor can I bring myself to say, "Comrade." First, I don't know if this will be part of the distributist tradition. I have not seen the word yet in Chesterton or Hilloc. Also, since we have not met, this may overly familiar. On the other hand, "Raul" or even "Raulito" feels OK, for some reason. Maybe because of that guy who sells the eye surgery on TV.

I am so happy to have you on board, Raulito, that I will happily serve as consultant. To that end, I will be reading medieval Church history and economic and legal forms. More to the point, though, Raulito, I would suggest we approach an appropriate order to come in and help run things. I suggest we avoid the more warlike groups like the Hospitallers of Jerusalem in favor of say, Franciscans or Cistercians.

Now that I know you (Raulito) are a reader, I'll give little hints along the way.

This transition from Cuban Communism to distributism should in some ways be quite smooth, because there are not big landowners with whom we must deal. On the other hand the human rights issues have been a problem in Cuba since they were reported by Bartolome de las Casas, but, hey, human rights is the whole idea behind distributism.

Now if only George W. will start reading.