Learn About The Economic Democracy Act

08/05/2026

In the future AI and Robotics don't need the rich dividends, ... or labor.

08/05/2026

Ask the right questions? Who Owns America?

07/29/2026

The problem of debt isn't the amount, but the size and scope of the solution is.

07/19/2026

Fact: The Governor of New York never got the message, nor did the Congressional Black Caucus. LISTEN AGAIN!

Excerpt from CESJ testimony before the Congressional Black Caucus, ...

07/17/2026

06/25/2026

Most people think they know what “distributism” means.
Chesterton fans claim it. Socialists try to absorb it. Capitalists dismiss it. And nearly everyone ends up talking past each other.

Michael Greaney cuts through the noise.

In Part I, he shows how the entire debate was warped from the start — Chesterton insisting distributism was not socialism, Shaw insisting it absolutely was, and generations of thinkers confusing distributism with everything from Fabianism to democratic socialism. The result? A century of muddled definitions and ideological tug‑of‑war.

In Part II, he goes deeper — exposing how some self‑styled distributists drifted into romanticism, sectarianism, or even exclusionary thinking, while missing Chesterton’s actual first principle: the dignity of the human person expressed through widespread ownership of productive capital. Not nostalgia. Not ideology. A natural‑law foundation for real economic freedom.

And that’s where Economic Personalism enters the scene — not as a rival to distributism, but as the framework that finally resolves the Chesterton–Shaw debate and restores distributism to its natural‑law core.

If you’ve ever wondered what distributism really is…
If you’ve sensed that the old categories don’t fit our moment…
If you want clarity instead of slogans…

Start here.
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2020/06/distributism-and-economic-personalism_25.html (Part II)
https://just3rdway.blogspot.com/2020/06/distributism-and-economic-personalism.html (Part I)

Every once in a while those of us who promote what we call the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism are asked whether...

06/24/2026

A century ago, Judge Peter S. Grosscup warned that America would one day face a choice: a nation owned by the few, or a nation owned by the many. Today, as AI giants and space‑frontier companies reshape the world, Washington is looking in all the wrong places for the right answer. This essay traces the forgotten lineage of American ownership — from Grosscup to Humphrey to Kelso — and argues that the wealth of the AI and space revolutions must belong not to the government, not to the oligarchs, but to We the People. A call to reclaim the frontier before it closes.

Why America’s AI Wealth Should Belong to We the People

06/16/2026

There are truths that flicker through every age like a pilot light refusing to go out. One of them is this: a person’s dignity is inseparable from his or her capacity to own, to steward, to create.
When Pope Leo XIII wrote that “as many as possible of the people should become owners,” he was not drafting an economic policy — he was describing a spiritual anthropology. Ownership is not a privilege of the few; it is the outward sign of inward freedom. To own is to participate in creation itself — to shape, to choose, to be responsible. When a nation forgets this, it forgets how to be human.

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject , we began this discussion a month ago after seeing an article in a w...