The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 5. What would that look like, and why would it fix anything, other than limiting my choices and lightening my wallet? The Distributist Impact.

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with th...:

So, having published this screed over a period of days, and then dropping the topic, we resume with the question.

Why, exactly, do you think this would do a darn thing?

Well, here's why.

A daily example.

When I started this entry on Monday, March 4, I got up, fixed coffee and took the medication I'm now required to as I'm 60 years old, and the decades have caught up with me. The pills are from a locally owned pharmacy, I'd note, not from a national chain, so I did a distributist thing there.  It's only one block away, and I like them. Distributism.

I toasted a bagel, as in my old age the genetic "No" for adults consuming milk has caught up with me.  I got that at Albertson's and I don't know where the bagels are made.  Albertson's is a national chain that's in the process of trying to merge with another national chain. Corporate Capitalism.

The coffee was Boyers, a Colorado outfit. Quasi distributist there.

I put cream cheese on the bagel.  It was the Philadelphia brand. Definitely corporate capitalist there.

I'd already shaved (corporate capitalist, but subsidiarity makes that make sense).

I got dressed and headed to work.  My car was one I bought used, but its make is one that used to be sold by a locally owned car dealer.  No more. The manufacturers really prefer regional dealers, and that's what we have.  All the cars we have come from the dealer when it was locally owned.

I don't have that option anymore.  Corporate Capitalism.

In hitting the highway, I looked up the highway towards property owned by a major real estate developer/landlord.  A type of corporate capitalism.

I drove past some churches and the community college on the way in. Subsidiarity.

I drove past one of the surviving fraternal clubs.  Solidarity.

I drove past the major downtown churches.  Solidarity.

I drove past a collection of small stores, and locally owned restaurants adn bars, and went in the buildings.  Distributism.

I worked the day, occasionally dealing with the invading Colorado or other out of state firms.  Corporate Capitalism.

I reversed my route, and came home.

So, in this fairly average day, in a Western midsized city, I actually encountered a fair number of things that would be absolutely the same in a Distributist society.  But I encountered some that definitely ran very much counter to it.

Broadening this out.

A significant thing was just in how I ate.  And I eat a lot more agrarian than most people do.

The meat in our freezer was either taken by me in the field, or a cow of our own that was culled.  Most people cannot say that. But all the other food was store bought, and it was all bought from a gigantic national chain.  In 1924 Casper had 72 grocers, and it was less than a quarter of its present size.  In 1925, just one year later, it had 99 grocery stores.  The number fell back down to 70 in 1928.

August 1923 list of grocers in Casper that sold Butternut Coffee, which was probably every grocer.

When I was a kid, the greater Casper area had Safeway, Albertson's, Buttreys and an IGA by my recollection, in the national chains.  Locally, however, it had six local grocery stores, including one in the neighboring town of Mills.  One located right downtown, Brattis' was quite large, as was another one located in North Casper.

Now the entire area has one local grocery store and it's a specialty store.

Examples like this abound.  We have a statewide sporting goods store and a local one, but we also have a national one.  The locals are holding their own.  When I was young there was a locally owned store that had actually been bought out from a regional chain, and a national hardware store that sold sporting goods.  So this hasn't changed a lot.

And if we go to sporting goods stores that sell athletic equipment, it hasn't either. We have one locally owned one and used to have two. We have one national chain, and used to have none.

In gas stations, we have a locally owned set of gas stations and the regional chains.  At one time, we only had local stores, which were franchises. The local storefronts might be storefronts, in the case of the national chains, as well.

When I was a kid, the only restaurants that were national were the fast food franchises, which had competition from local outfits that had the same sort of fare and setting.  The locals burger joints are largely gone, save for one I've never been to and which is a "sit down" restaurant, and we have national and regional restaurant chains.  We retain local ones as well.  

We don't have any chain bars, which I understand are a thing, and local brewing, killed off by Prohibition, has come roaring back.

We used to have a local meat processing plant that was in fact a regional one, taking in cattle from the area, and packing it and distributing it back out, including locally.  There are no commercial packing plants in Wyoming now.  The closest one, I think, is in Greeley Colorado, and the packing industry is highly concentrated now.

We don't have a local creamery, either.  We had one of those at least into the 1940s, and probably well beyond that.  The milk for that establishment was supplied by a dairy that was on the south side of town.  It's no longer that and hasn't been for my entire life.

We've been invaded by the super huge law firms that are not local.

Our hospital is part of a private chain now, and there's massive discontent. That discontent took one of the county commissioners that was involved in the transfer of that entity out of county hands down in the last election.  But that hasn't arrested the trend.  My doctor, who I really like is part of a regional practice, not his own local one, anymore.  This trend is really strong.

And then there's Walmart, the destroyer of locally owned stores of every variety.

So would distribution make anything different?

The question is asked by a variant of Wendell Berry's "what are people for", but in the form of "what is an economy for?".

It's to serve people, and to serve them in their daily lives, as people.

It's not to make things as cheap as possible.

On all of the retail things I've mentioned, every single one could be served by local retail stores.  If we didn't have Albertson's, Riddleys and Smith's, we'd have a lot of John Albertson & Son's, Bill Riddley & Family, and Emiliano Smith's stores, owned by their families.  If Walmart didn't exist, and moreover couldn't exist, it would be replaced locally, probably by a half dozen family owned retailers. . . or more.

Prices would in fact be higher, although there would be competition, but the higher prices would serve families who operated them, and by extension the entire community.  And this is just one example.  

Much of the old infrastructure in fact remains.  As discussed above, numerous small businesses remain, and according to economic statistics, small business remains the number one employer in the US.  But the fact is that giant chain corporations have made a devastating impact on the country, making all local business imperiled and some practically impossible to conduct.

Reversing that would totally reorient the local economy.  Almost everyone would work for themselves, or for a locally owned business, owned by somebody they knew personally, and who knew them personally.

And with that reorientation, would come a reorientation of society.

We'll look at that a bit later.  Let's turn towards the agrarian element next.

Last Prior:

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 4. A Well Educated Society.

Blog Mirror: Mr. President, what you should say tonight

 

Mr. President, what you should say tonight

The Agrarian's Lament: What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 3. Agrarianism.

The Agrarian's Lament: What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). ...: 

What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 3. Agrarianism.

And what's this thing about Agrarianism?

I believe that this contest between industrialism and agrarianism now defines the most fundamental human difference, for it divides not just two nearly opposite concepts of agriculture and land use, but also two nearly opposite ways of understanding ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our world.

Wendell Berry.

Given the above, isn't Agrarianism simply agricultural distributism?

Well, no.

Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society

Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.

Agrarianism is agriculture oriented on an up close and personal basis, and as such, it's family oriented, and land ethic oriented.

We have noted before:

Farm Resettlement Agency poster from the Great Depression. The FRA was not a success, by and large.

Agriculture has always been close to the hearts of Distributist and in regards to it they can really be regarded as the close associates of Agrarians. When we read older Agrarian texts, we're basically reading Distributist ones. That's why modern Distributists can be found quoting Thomas Jefferson, who basically lived in a naturally Distributist world, mixed with Mercantilism, and who never heard the word Distributist.

Agriculture, for that part, has remained somewhat in this category anyhow, although in recent decades this has been heavily impacted by various developments that threaten that.  Absentee land ownership has always been a problem that has been there.

In a Distributist economy the US would adopt policies that actually do exist in other Western nations. France, for example, has had a Distributist set of agriculture policies since World War Two and I believe that Germany has as well. Greece also does.  In Germany's case, the road map for a Distributist agricultural sector has been set out in book form at that, in Wilhelm Von Roepke's "Economics of a Free Society", in which he addresses it.

In short, in a Distributist economy those employed farming would own the farms.  Absentee landlords and remote corporate ownership of land would not be allowed.  Indeed, a purse Distributist might take this even further on land ownership, and not allow it for use outside a person use or business entity in general, but that's straying from main topic.  In agriculture, it's pretty clear that's what Distributist would have to advance. So, no more wealthy people from one state buying a land and claiming to be "ranchers" in another.  And no more lawyers or doctors in town claiming that their small hobby farm is a farm.  Farm, or practice law, but don't do both.

This part of this is, we'd note, truly radical.  More on that in a moment.  But what this would do, is to make individual farms more viable economically, but worth considerably less individually.  It would therefore be easier for people to enter agriculture, but it would be much less lucrative to sell out of it in some ways.  And I suspect in a pure Distributist economy regulation in this area would come in to further advance this set of goals.

But Agrarianism goes much further than this.  It retains something that the rest of society has tragically lost, which is that we are inseparably bound to the soil, and inseparably bound to nature.

The fact that we have lost this has been massively corrupting and is massively destructive.  Indeed, it threatens to destroy us.

Not everyone in a modern agrarian economy would be farmers, as some like to either imagine, or criticize. But society would be family farm oriented.  And it would value the land ethic.

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold.

Realizing that agrarianism is, whether we like it or not, and that we ignore it at our ultimate peril and destruction, is the paramount task of agrarians today.  No one thing every cures all of a society's ills, but a modern agrarian economy would come pretty darned close.

Which presumes not only a well grounded society, but a well-educated society.

We've lost that.

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with the world (and how to fix it). Part 2. Distributism

The Agrarian's Lament: A sort of Agrarian Manifesto. What's wrong with t...: 

Much of this, indeed the lion's share, could be fixed by reordering the economy to be Distributist.

That may seem extreme, but then, in the modern world, this is extreme, and frankly, we're in an extreme situation that we need to find a way out of or events of one kind or another will take us out of them for us.  

To be more extreme, we'd note what Cardinal Sarah has above, once again, the barbarians are alrady inside the city.

I've started off with agrarianism, and I mean it, but I'd also note that an aspect of agrarianism is distributism. All agraraians are distributists, not all distributist are agrarians.  We'll start with distributism.  

What the hecks is it, anyway.  We'll, we'll turn to an old Lex Anteinternet post, where we discussed that (we just bumped that post up here).

What the heck is Distributism anyway?

 The prolific writer G. K. Chesterton, who wrote novels, poetry, and philosophy in stunningly large quantities.  An intellectual giant, he was enormously influential on British writing in his era and was part of the collection of personalities that included C. K. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien and Hellaire Belloc.  Together with Belloc he was a major proponent of Distributism.

I'm fairly convinced that part of the problem with Distributism is the name.  At least up until recently, the concept that a politician would act to "distribute" wealth has been a hugely negative on in American political speech.  I suppose with Saunders running, a person could ask if this was still true, but for purposes of our discussion here we should note that Distributism doesn't mean that sort of distributing.  Quite the contrary.

Rather, Distributism is based on the concept of Subsidiarity, which of course doesn't help much to most people as most people don't know what that means.  That too is problematic as the term is really confusing to most people. The term comes out of Catholic social thinking, and it holds that the best and most just means of doing things is to push it down to the lowest practical level.  Ironically, that's a highly American concept and the polar opposite of the large-scale statist approach to things that many conservative Americans fear.  Subsidiarity stands for local control, or control below that level if possible.

In economic terms, or rather through Distributist terms, what this amounts to is an economic system based upon a free economy that favors economic power being concentrated at the family or individual level.  It's a highly capitalist system, and one that is actually more capitalist than the Corporate Capitalism that most westerners believe to be capitalism, which is really Corporate Capitalism.

A Distributist economy, therefore, would discourage, or perhaps even prohibit, the concentration of the means of retail distribution in the hands of corporations in favor of family or individual enterprises.  So, rather than have a Walmart, you'd have a family owned appliance store, a family owned clothing store, a family owned grocery store, etc.  That's a pretty simple illustration the retail end of the economy, but that's a major aspect of Distributism. Distributism also has an agricultural aspect to it that's frankly agrarian, although agrarianism predates Distributism.  What that means is that farms would be owned and operated by the actual farmer.  That sounds simplistic but it stands contrary to much of what we see today, with agricultural land held by absentee owners, or by the wealthy who do not work it, or by agricultural corporations.

Modern Distributist sometimes get wrapped up in romantic notions of local production as well, and that's clearly an aspect of a Distributist economy.  Nonetheless any rational economist, no matter what stripe they may be, will acknowledge that in the modern world large-scale industrial production is the province of corporations.  That may be good or bad, but it's been known and discussed as an aspect of this since the mid 19th Century at least.  Rational Distributist, to include, on this topic, Theodore Roosevelt, have discussed how to handle this in the context of a Distributist economy, but that it would be one is quite clear.

In short, Distributism favors the smallest economic unit possible.  And it does this on a philosophical basis, that being that small freeholders, or small businessmen, or small artisans, should hold the reins of the economy, as that concentrates wealth in their hands, those being middle class hands.  By doing that, that makes much of the middle class more or less economically independent, but not wealthy, stabilizes wealthy in the hands of the largest number of people, and strengthens the ability of the people to decide things locally.  In other words, that sort of economy "distributes" economic wealth and production to the largest number of people, and accordingly "distributes" political power to the largest number of people, on the theory that this is best for the largest number of people.

Interestingly, almost any stripe of Capitalist will actually use most of the same words, as well Socialist, even though there's reasons to question their respective impacts.  Socialism actually concentrates power in the hands of bureaucracy and dissipates wealth.  At least to some extent, Corporate Capitalism in recent years, and perhaps in all years, tends to concentrate wealth in remote corporations and a few who lead them.

So why is that important here?

Because what people don't have, is well. . . anything.  People are consumers, and servants.  They lack something of their own, and they accordingly lack stability.  Increasingly, on certain things, including economics and science, they lack education.

And, like the ignorant and have-nots tend to be, they're unhappy and made.

The unhappy and mad masses always make for ignorant revolutions, whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, or the revolutionary period of the Weimar Republic that concluded with the Nazis coming to power.  Not having anything, they're willing to try something, whether that something be Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump.

It was Jefferson who noted that republics were grounded in yeomen farmers, for the reason that they were independent men.  Through Corporate Capitalism, we've been working on destroying the yeomanry for quite some time now.

The failure of people to have their own has been significant in creating the crisis that we face today.  People who worked for other entities, and that's most people, find themselves either adrift without them or slaves to them.  People live where they don't want to at jobs and careers they don't want to, in conditions they don't want to, even if they do not fully realize it, as their corporate masters compel them to.  It gets worse, all the time, and people are powerless against it.

Indeed, not only are they powerless, but they can be compelled to act against their own best interests, and often do.  People who love one thing as their true selves, will work to destroy the ability to do it for their corporate masters.  You don't have to look much beyond the Wyoming legislature to see this, where some advocate policies that would deprive average Wyomingites to access to public lands, for example, something that only serves the interest of the wealthy.

 What does a Distributist Economy look like?

Generally, what Distributist would do is to strip away, as noted, the ability of large entities to own and operate businesses and "distribute" that down to the smallest practical element.  So, where you have big box stores you'd now have lots of small retail stores.  Where you have chain stores you no longer would. Where you have have chain services shops, a relatively new and fast developing economic entity, you would have individually owned shops.  Where you had chain service industries, such as reality brokerages, you would once again have small locally owned ones.  Where you have H & R Block, you'd have your local accountant. 

 

 Drug store in Southington Connecticut, 1940s.  This family had a shop on this corner for about 200 years at the time this photograph was taken. Do they still?  Photo from an earlier, and now linked in, thread.  This sort of sore had disappeared from many localties in favor of a consolidating the goods sold by a sotre like this in some bigger, chain, store.

Proprietor of family butcher shop, 1940s.  This industry still exists, but the butcher shop has yielded at least partially to the chain grocery store.  For people who like little clues from movies, the film "Marty" involves the story of a simple butcher who has bought such a shop from an owner who has no family.  The intrusion of the super market is actually mentioned in the film,

 

 Paint store.  It's not Home Depot.

 Colorado Bakery and Grocery, a local store of the past in Ft. Collins Colorado.  It's now a brew pub.  Local grocery stores have fallen way off, from once dominating the field to now being a boutique exception.  Brew pubs, however, are a Distributist triumph in the true sense.

This raises the natural question of what about production?  All that addresses is retail.  What about service industries, what about production, and what about agriculture.

Service is one of the easier aspect of this to address, actually, as it started remote national concentration late in the game, and its far from complete.  When we look at doctors, lawyer, and accountants, and the like, we still a lot of the old economy around, while we see the encroachment of national corporate consolidation coming in at the same time.  Something about many of these industries, however, is resistant to too much consolidation, even as we see big efforts to cause it to come about.

In a Distributist economy, quite simply, this would stop.  Law Firms, Accountancy Firms, Doctors offices, would be local.   Hospitals and the likes would be as well.

A couple of old building in Rock Spring's historic district, across from the class Union Pacific depot.  The building on the left is the National Bank building, and was built in 1892.  The one on the right has much of its "ghost signs" painted out, so I'm not sure of its identity, but it's number 18 on the historic district tour. From Painted Bricks.

Well, what about banks? They're a service industry.

Banks, under classic Distributist thought, were really taken on as a negative aspect of the economy and frankly this is one of the areas where old school Distributist, prior to World War Two, sounded a lot like Socialist.  If you look back at Distributist commentary of that period you will find a lot of references to preventing banks from charging interest, and things of this ilk.  All that was extremely unrealistic, to say the least, and it also reflects an earlier era which has really passed.  Taking  on banks is a favorite topic for all politicians now days, but the biggest problems we've had with banks are founded on banking consolidation and inadequate regulation.

Banks, as concentrations of economic maladies, usually only develop real problems when they are largely unregulated. When the old school Distributist formed their thoughts on the matter, that was the case. And the recent banking problems the United States has had largely flowed from the concept that regulation of banks was passe, followed by an actual effort on the part of the government to encourage banks in areas that they shouldn't go.  An overarching aspect of all of this is that an old policy of encouraging home ownership via home loans is a remaining nonsensical central American governmental goal that creates problems in and of itself.  Finally, the consolidation of banking into larger and larger remotely owned banks contributes to the problem. There still are locally owned or regionally owned banks, but not nearly as many as there once was.

Realistically, as banks are so heavily regulated, in a modern Distributist economy the goal would be to keep the banks local or at least no more than regional.  That keeps them focused on their locality and the local economy. The Federal government's sponsorship of home loans probably ought to cease, although that is probably a Distributist concept, or maybe even a Socialist one, in and of itself.  Encouraging any one kind of loan is something that should be really carefully thought out before its done.

Or maybe the ship has sailed with banks, like industrial production (which we'll address below), and today Distributist would have to have a mixed approach, encouraging local but tolerating national.  It's hard to see how industry in particular could exist without large banks.

Large banking has given us credit cards, an aspect of the economy wholly unknown to the original Distributist.  Of course ,they were unknown to earlier Capitalist as well, and have just sort of occurred. This too may be an area where the ship has sailed, but on the other hand, it would be one that I'd have a hard time imagining modern Distributist avoiding.  But how that would be handled in the new economy, which only saw the introduction of widespread use of credit cards starting in the 1970s, is an open question.  Credit cards now make up a huge percentage of the "money" in our economy, and they are interesting an huge unregulated sector, to a significant degree.  That is ,the percentage of interest they charge are regulated, but the creation of them is not.  It's been an amazing change in the economy.

Comedian Marty Allen making a joke of having a large number of credit cards, something that was looked down upon in the 1960s when this photograph was taken.  Now, nearly everyone in the American economy has at least one credit card.

It's an interesting topic, but one that I won't be able to address fully, which is one of the problems when discussing a modern Distributist economy (we'll get to problems in a minute). As there's been no real development of the theory in decades, and as it's never been fully implemented anywhere, some of these topics need to be completely re-thought by Distributists.

Among those topics are topics like insurance.  Americans like to complain about insurance, but by and large the insurance industry is amazingly capable and it really can't be done efficiently on a local level.  This is true of all types of insurance, to include most particularly liability insurance, which people don't think about much but which is particularly important to the economy.  Indeed, topics like banking and insurance do indeed suggest that a Distributist economy might be a bad idea.

Blacksmiths working on the iron rim of a wheel.

That leaves production.

In production, this can also be done, but only to a certain extent in a realistic modern economy.  Indeed, a surprising amount of production of various types is done this way, as nearly every major economic field features local fabrication of some sort, which is local production.  But it's quite clear that in a modern industrial economy, you can't have local production of everything.  Cars, for example, aren't going to be made in a local shop by skilled craftsmen.

How Distributist would handle this aspect of their economic theory is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer.  Some would borrow from Socialist examples, all of which are problematic.  Some might borrow from Theodore Roosevelt's progressive era suggestion and require public ownership of a certain percentage of large corporations, to give a voice in their affairs.  Some might restrict organizing in the corporate forum until a business reached a certain size.  All in all, I don't know how this topic would be approached.  It might be approached in the same way that modern Socialism tends to approach it, which is basically not to except by regulation and taxation, which really takes a person outside of the context of the theory in general and into something else.  What is clear is that in this area the example of Corporate Capitalism would have to largely suffice for Distributist as well.

Union Pacific Depo in Rock Springs Wyoming.  This surviving business from the 19th Century would never have come about except through extensive government support, something that often tends to be forgotten when the stories of large business in the United States are considered.  Indeed, nearly every very large railroad in North American had some government assistance of some sort when it came into existence.

Distribution of goods, on the other hand, is really mixed, but will probably cease to be in the future for environmental reasons.  Right now, distribution of goods in the North American economy is an interesting mixed system, using locally owned and often leased semi tractor combined with large corporate railways.  By and large, the system, if it involves distance, is corporate owned one way or another, and that probably cannot be avoided.  Transcontinental distribution, therefore, may be something like large scale manufacturing and have to be basically left as is, in a Distributist economic model.  Or perhaps it would be handled in one of the several fashions described above as theoretical possibilities for manufacturing.

Okay, I suppose that's all well and good, but so what?  Once again, lots of people note these things and then think they're bold Distributist as they buy free range Cornish Game Hens at the local market.

A person can believe that they can bring an economy about through self actuation, but that's baloney and its really only a comfortable delusion for the really well off. It's the same sort of delusion that comforted wealthy western Communists in the 1920s and 1930s who lived in countries that were never going to be Communist, as there was never any real threat of a real Communist economy to them.  A real economic system, no matter what it is, never comes about without state intervention or support of some kind.

This is most evident, of course, in real classical Socialism, in which the state owns the means of production.  Taking that one step further, as the Communist tried to, the state can end up owning everything.  Those are the most blunt examples, and by the way they're examples of massively unworkable economic failures. That's why there are no real Communist economies outside of North Korea, and that's why most Socialist don't really advocate real Socialism anymore.

But even Capitalism, of the type that we have, requires state intervention to exist. We're just so used to it, we don't notice it.

That's because our Capitalism is Corporate Capitalism.  It's based on the existence of corporations and related business forms. These entities have the status of "persons" at law.  They can sue, be sued, and are taxed, like people as we've seen.

The biggest economic advantage that they convey is the sue and be sued part, as that's where they are distinctly different from their natural fellow, the partnership.  In a conventional partnership, a person can be sued as an individual. That puts their individual assets at risk.  That's not true, however for shareholders in a corporation.  Only the corporate assets are ever at risk.

So, by way of an example, if Walmart does something bad, they don't look to the individual shareholders to make it good. They only look to Walmart.

Additionally, corporations allow for easy remote control.  Generally they're directed by boards rather than by everyone in the entity.  That's less true of normal common partnerships, where everyone gets a say.

All of this is noted as corporations, and related business forms, very obviously have a huge economic advantage over other types of business entities.  They're not natural, but legal fictions, but that legal fiction gives them enormous economic advantage. And that legal fiction is a creature of the state.  Corporations only exist as the statutory law allows people to create them. They would otherwise not exist at all.

Which leads us back to Distributism.  Rather obviously the way to bring about a modern Distributist economy is simply to limit where corporations can be formed, as we've seen. That would largely do it.  And that's a mere modification of the existing law.

If you prohibited, for example, corporations on the retail end, it would wipe out overnight entities like Walmart. There's no question about it. And in its place you'd soon find multiple locally owned stores where once the big box store had been.  And if you provided that land had to be held by the person working it, absentee landlords in agriculture and owning land as an exotic hobby would likewise be over.

There would obviously be limits to how far a person could go in this direction, however, in a modern economy.  Corporations would have to exist for large scale manufacturing.There's no earthly way that products of the type made by General Motors, or Boeing, of Apple, can be made by local entrepreneurs operating without the corporate form.  Therefore any rational system of Distributism, as opposed to a purely theoretical one, would have to accommodate itself to that just as modern Socialism also has.

Should it be tried?

So, it's pretty clear that a country could have a Distributist Economy.  It is realistic.  But that doesn't answer whether Distributism should be tried, which is quite another questions.

In other words, just because you can do something, sure doesn't mean that you should.

In order to answer that question, you have to determine what the goal of Distributism is, and whether that's something we want to effect.  You also have to determine what the negatives of it are, and whether they are worth enduring.  To even look at that, you have to first ask what the point of any economic system is.

It's pretty easy to determine the point, or thesis, of Capitalism, even in the modified Corporate Capitalist system that we have, or that anyone else has.  The general idea is that a free market is the most efficient and natural of economies and that as it is efficient, it leads to the efficient production of goods, and that creates wealth for everyone.  Corporate Capitalism's thesis is that the allowance of a legal fiction, the corporation, allows the combination of capital and management in such a fashion as to facilitate business in a capitalist model, thereby boosting productivity and hence wealth.

Before going on to Distributism, which is actually a species of capitalism, I'll note the same for Socialism. Socialism in its classic form is pretty easy to grasp, thesis wise.  Socialist argue that capitalism creates an unequal distribution of wealth favoring the owners of the means of production over the actual producers, and the solution to this is to have the state be the owner and distribute back to the worker.  As Socialism fails pretty badly in the execution, modern Socialist by and large don't actually advocate that, however, and instead focus on social activism and engineering, thereby taking themselves quite some distance from their economic theorist origins.  Indeed, many Socialist now appear to actually be some sort of capitalist, but of the state intervention variety.  The interesting thing about that is that it takes them in the direction of the "managed economy", which is basically what most western nations had, including the United States, from about 1932 through about 1980, when corporate capitalism reasserted itself.

Socialism was a reaction to early laissez faire capitalism, which was really early Corporate Capitalism.  It's undoubtedly the case that early industrialization lead to a very unequal distribution of wealth, but taking the long view, any early Capitalist economic enterprise does that.  Sure, factory owners of the 19th Century were vastly wealthy and their workers on the edge of poverty, but then the creators of electronic and internet based enterprises have become vastly wealthy in our modern age as well.  This is not to say that things were not unfair on the factory floor, but often missed in that story is that those jobs attracted a steady stream of applicants in any event, indicating that they were better than whatever they were fleeing from, which was probably rural poverty for those who did not own their own land.  At any rate, Socialism was an attempt, and a radical one, to address the ills of Corporate Capitalism of its day.  Ironically, Socialism in its real forms turned out to be worse, and the antidote to that nearly everywhere was Corporate Capitalism to at least some degree, often with a fair amount of state management in the old Communist countries.  

Put another way, where you don't have rich people, you tend to have all poor people.

Corporate Capitalism, however, was itself sort of a reaction to mercantilism.  Capitalism is a natural form of economics, but Corporate Capitalism clearly is not.  It came about in order to attempt to efficiently handle the scale of modern business, with the only prior way to do that being the unwieldy system of mercantilism, which  granted state sponsored monopolies to big business enterprises, such as the East India Company.  Mercantilism at least allowed for big business endeavors, but at the expense of discouraging competition, and hence it was inefficient and more than a little unfair.

Distributism came about as a reaction to both Corporate Capitalism and Socialism, back in the first half of the 20th Century when Socialism in its extreme form, Communism was strong (as was its socialist/autarkic competitor, fascism).   Coming up out of Catholic social thought, as it did, it was focused on the plight of the common man, but with a distinctly different viewpoint of Socialism.  It did not oppose the private ownership of property at all, but rather sought to vest it under the principals of subsidiarity, as previously noted.  This, it was thought, would address the unequal distribution of wealth (hence "Distributism") in a natural way, for the benefit of common people.

It's easy, of course, to find examples of Corporate Capitalism (just go downtown anywhere) and Socialism, but as Distributism is a younger theory in modern terms, and as Distributist shelved their ideas during World War Two in order to work for the common good, it's much harder to find examples of it.  You actually can, but you have to be able to recognize bits and pieces when you see it, and quite frankly it's often the case that the drafters of anyone proposal that went into law didn't conceive of themselves as Distributist, although sometimes they did.

A good example of it is provided by various European farming laws which disallow corporate or absentee ownership of farmland.  France is a good example, which is how the rural sector of France has remained fairly strong. Post war Germany also had a farm sector that was intentionally designed to be Distributist, by a Distributist.  At least one US state, however, also has a variant of such a law, and would probably be pretty surprised to find itself described as Distributist.  Various state and city ordinances restricting big box stores in some localities are also clearly Distributist, although the backers of those laws are no doubt largely ignorant of that.

Okay, so that's what it is, but that still doesn't answer the "so what" question.  Should Distributism be tried, or advanced as an economic theory?

Well, that probably depends upon how you view an economy in general. The Corporate Capitalist model, which has existed since the 17th Century, has certainly had its ups and downs, but over a very long course of time, and when braced by some state management, but not too much, it clearly is highly efficient.  It drives prices down and floods the market with  nearly endless options.  It's brought wealth to the nations that employ it. All of this is good, so the question could be, why tinker with that?

An answer to that might be to note that Distributism really is tinkering with that.  Not wholly replacing it. That's because Distributism is also a form of capitalism, just a more natural one.  Or potentially a more natural one. As Distributism is much poorer formed than Capitalism as a theory, some Distributist flirt with Socialism and high degrees of social activism, while others do not.

If we take the simply notion of Distributism, however, it's merely another type of Capitalism, and an older one, as by implication it would have to rely less on the corporation.  No modern capitalist economy can avoid corporations, but as previously noted they could rely on them less. But why would that matter?

It would matter, if it does, because the net effect would be to push down the economy to a much more local and personal level.  To be blunt, is it better to have really cheap prices, but remote ownership, and lower wages (Corporate Capitalism) vs. higher prices and locally owned self sustaining middle class business (Distributism)?  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  Under a Distributism model, assuming that it would actually work, there'd be fewer very rich people and more middle class business owners. But even being in the middle class would be probably at least somewhat more expensive than it current is, and it'd be more the middle class of fifty years ago, which most people in the middle class were in the middle, or bottom, of the middle class back, with few in the upper areas of it.  Now, quite a few in the middle class are upper middle class, and of course we have more super wealthy than every before.  So, by getting more in the middle, on both ends, we take some out of the bottom and some out of the top.

Some would argue that the depression of economic classes from the upper end down, while taking the bottom and bringing it up, was a good collateral byproduct from a social point of view, although that really takes us out of economics, and Distributist economics, into something else.  Certainly bringing the bottom up undoubtedly has it merits, and is the point of any economic theory really.  Depressing the top down is another matter when it extends into the middle class, and very few in our economy would openly admit that. Even modern Socialist always claim to be acting on behalf of the Middle Class, when formerly they would have condemned as being bourgeois.  The arguments on that would vary, but basically it would be that there's something bad about having too much wealth in an economy, which again really gets beyond economics and into social theory. That's a problematic theory, but it is interesting to note that wealthy societies do tend to become effete. 

Of course, everything would also be much more locally focused, with is an additional point advanced by Distributist as an advantage.

The answer to our question, therefore, I suppose, might depend on how you view your role in the economy, but there are some serious things to consider here.  Corporate Capitalism has brought vast wealth to the world, and we no doubt live in the wealthiest period of time the world has ever seen.  Indeed, by world standards, the United States has virtually nobody who would qualify as truly poor, although by our standards we clearly do and that is not to be made light of.  Anyhow, why would anyone want to mess with that?

Well, one reason may be in that in the long history of Corporate Capitalism it seemingly goes through stages over time where it truly does concentrate vast wealth into the hands of very few, with bad results for almost everyone else.  The mid 19th Century history of Corporate Capitalism heavily featured that, which as we know gave rise to Communism and hardcore radical Socialism.  In the US, it gave rise to Progressiveness, a movement that flirted with Socialist ideas (and which flirted with some Distributist ones).  The ills of the mid 19th Century ended up being addressed, one way or another, and in most localities that ended up with labor coming out pretty well. But in our new highly global economy that does seem to be not so much the case anymore, at least if the arguments of individuals like Thomas Piketty are to be believed.  Indeed, individuals like Piketty argue that the economy is yielding to a new type of oligarchy, at the expense of everyone except the oligarchs.

Added to that, a prior feature of Corporate Capitalism was to alter the nature of a locality fairly heavily, and sometimes an entire society, but often not so much.  Now, however, Corporate Capitalism in its current form, in the US, seems to be driving everyone to the cities in a fashion not seen since the early British Industrial Revolution.  There's no good evidence that this really suits everyone, it merely suits the economy itself.  So, it has to be seriously asked if the economy is serving the people, or are the people serving the economy.  Looking at contemporary choices that people have, or don't have, it seems more and more that people are serving the economy.  Put another way, is a life of cubicles and clerking really all that nifty?

As part of that, the high state of development of Corporate Capitalism like we know have has very much worked to divest people from business. That is, localism has really suffered as a result of it.  People have little connection to the stores that provide much of their goods, and for that matter the people providing them have little connection with the people they're providing them to.  In some agricultural sectors the people owning land have next to no connection with the states where they own them.  Indeed, one of hte more amusing, and at the same time sad, aspects of modern Western ranching is that sooner or later everyone doing it is going to run across a photo in some journal of a smiling wealthy man whom the journalist writes up as a "rancher", when what he really is a hobbyist with clothing that makes him look a bit absurd to locals. But that same individual keeps those locals from actually being ranchers, as they cannot compete with him economically. All of that hurts the local, and over time people become divorced form their own localities, with negative results.

For these reasons, I suspect, we're starting to see some really serious flirting with Socialism for the first time in about thirty years, which is interesting, and scary to anyone who has any passing familiarity with the history of Socialism in actual practice.  By and large, people are doing well economically but there is something they don't like about what their seeing, maybe.  Bernie Saunders now stands a real chance of being the nominee of the Democratic Party even though he's an avowed Socialist, the first time that a Socialist has advanced in Democratic politics since the late 1940s.  While none of this may have anything to do with economic thought, as earlier noted Australia and Canada have taken slight left turns in recent parliamentary elections, and Greece took a huge left turn.  Of course, some nations, like Denmark and Hungary, have taken sharp right turns.  We can assume that all of these voters don't know what they are doing, but that's not a safe assumption.  Some state of general discontent on something seems to be lurking out there, with some pretty radical solutions in the mix here and there.

And for that reason, it's to be lamented that there aren't any Distributist candidates in any party, anywhere.  Distributism is a subtle economic theory, but it's clearly more of a realistic one than Socialism is, and yet it seems to address many of the aspects of discontent that drive people into leftist economic theories.  As with our national politics, in which everyone has to be a Republican or a Democrat, no matter what they actually think, in our economy it seems you have to be a (Corporate) Capitalist or a Social Democrat, which makes very little sense.  There's no reason to believe that these two camps are the only natural ones, and taking a look at some Distributist ideas seems to be well overdue.  It's clear that no purely Distributist economy is going to come about in our day and age, but that doesn't mean that some of the ideas do not indeed have merit.  Some should be looked at.  Indeed, that's where the disappointment in a lack of such ideas being floated, except by some theorist and seemingly the Pope, is a shame.  It isn't as if any modern country is going to wholesale adopt Distributism.  But maybe some Distributist ideas are worth seriously considering, and right now they aren't getting any air.  It would be nice if they could, particularly when we see the failed theory of Socialism getting some, amazingly.

So, what about agriculture, and this agrarian thing?

The 2024 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part 4. Oedant Arma Toga.

 

February 26, 2024

The start of week three.

February 27, 2024

Given the huge differences between the House and Senate versions of the budget, a special session is being discussed.

The legislature just passed the halfway mark last Friday.

The much talked about tax restructuring House Bill 203 was heavily amended yesterday so that the $1,000,0000 home value exemption was dropped to  $200,000 and the sales tax from 2% to 1%, effectively eliminating the real structure of the bill.

I earlier predicted it would die, and this is, unfortunately, a new bill.  It'll still die, but for the overwhelming majority of Wyomingites, all this would do is create a new tax.  Changing the $1,000,000 to, perhaps, $500,000 would have made sense, but probably most Wyoming homes now have a $200,000 value.

The Senate passed SF 105 which bans credit card tracking of firearms purchased, a totally non-existent problem that even an interview from a local sporting goods store was baffled about.

February 27, cont:

Not really legislative, but:

Governor Gordon Issues Line-Item Vetoes to Secretary of State’s ESG Investing Rules

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – After careful review of a rules package proposed by Secretary of State Chuck Gray on Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) investment disclosure and consent, Governor Mark Gordon has determined that parts of the rules go beyond the Secretary’s legal authority. As a result the Governor issued line item-vetoes of portions of the rules. 

The Governor has long-opposed any artificial implementation of ESG factors in investment strategies. 

“While I agree that ESG investment guidance is improper and misleading, the answer to too much government interference in our lives is not more government,” Governor Gordon said. “No government should have the right to direct people’s personal investment strategies.”

In a letter sent to Secretary Gray, Governor Gordon notes that by law he can only approve rules within the bounds set by statute. In the case of the proposed rules addressing ESG investing, the statute does not allow the government to tell individuals how they must invest their dollars. The consumer protection required by Wyoming and federal law speaks to transparency and disclosure only. Informed consumers should have the freedom to make their own investment choices. 

“To be clear, I agree with your efforts to better illuminate investment practice and strategy through disclosure. Properly informed investors are always better able to make good decisions for themselves,” Governor Gordon wrote.

“Our appetite to oppose radical and misguided ESG initiatives in Wyoming does not justify implementing rules beyond the scope of statutory authority or interfering in the personal investment choices of Wyoming citizens. Personal responsibility and liberty are sacred principles that are all too often usurped by government mandate,” he added.

In the letter, the Governor also noted that federal securities laws expressly prohibit state conflicts “in the regulation of (1) federally covered securities, (2) broker dealers, (3) federally covered investment advisors, (4) investment advisor representatives, and (5) securities agents.”

The Governor’s letter to the Secretary of State may be viewed here. A copy of the Governor’s line-item vetoes can be found here.

 And:

Secretary Gray Expresses Disappointment in Governor's Line-Item Veto of Rules to Protect Investors from ESG Investments through Increased Disclosure; Secretary Gray Reiterates Need to Protect Investors from Radical ESG Investments

     CHEYENNE, WY – On February 27, 2024, Governor Mark Gordon line-item vetoed amendments to Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 10 of the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Securities Rules, which required disclosure and consent to Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) investment strategies by requiring investment advisers, broker-dealers, and securities agents to disclose to their customers or clients whether they are incorporating a social objective, i.e. whether they are considering social criteria, in the investment or commitment of customer or client funds, and obtain their consent. Following the Governor’s line-item veto, the rules limit the definition of a social objective, and will require written disclosure for some ESG-related investments, but will not require customer or client consent.

     “I am disappointed in and disagree with Governor Gordon’s decision to line-item veto key portions of our proposed Securities Rules,” Secretary of State Chuck Gray said in a statement. “From the beginning of this rulemaking, we addressed concerns raised by Governor Gordon. We underwent a thorough public comment period, and fully considered all feedback received. As I wrote previously in my letter dated July 19, 2024, and again in my letter dated January 16, 2024, the Wyoming Uniform Securities Act clearly allows Wyoming to protect customers and clients from the harmful effects of ESG investments. I am disappointed to see the Governor’s rationale has adopted the recycled talking points of the radical left and Wall Street elites, rather than sound legal arguments. We must take concrete, proactive action to protect our state and consumers from the dangers presented by ESG investments maliciously targeting our core industries.”

     “Although the Governor’s line-item veto weakened the amount of protections we attempted to provide to customers and clients to protect them from the dangers of ESG investment strategies, I believe the final rules offer a necessary starting point to protect Wyomingites from social ideologues imposing their radical, clown-show agenda on our state.”  

Cont:

Passed Senate, on to House:

SENATE FILE NO. SF0094

An act regarding compelled speech and state employers.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Hutchings, French and Ide and Representative(s) Styvar and Ward

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to the administration of government; prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from compelling speech as specified; authorizing a civil remedy; providing an exception to the Wyoming governmental claims act; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 9‑14‑301 is created to read:

ARTICLE 3

COMPELLED OR PROHIBITED SPEECH

9‑14‑301.  Compelled speech; civil action.

(a)  The state and its political subdivisions shall not compel or require an employee to refer to another employee using that employee's preferred pronouns:

(i)  As a condition of continuing or commencing employment or contracting with the state or a political subdivision;

(ii)  As a condition to receive a grant, contract, license or other benefit afforded by the state or a political subdivision; or

(iii)  Under threat of adverse action by the state or a political subdivision, including but not limited to an adverse employment action, exclusion, sanction or punishment.

(b)  Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section may file a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the state or any political subdivision, and its employees acting in their official capacities, responsible for the violation to recover appropriate relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief, compensatory damages, reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

Section 2.  W.S. 1‑39‑104(a) is amended to read:

1‑39‑104.  Granting immunity from tort liability; liability on contracts; exceptions.

(a)  A governmental entity and its public employees while acting within the scope of duties are granted immunity from liability for any tort except as provided by W.S. 1‑39‑105 through 1‑39‑112 and 9‑14‑301. Any immunity in actions based on a contract entered into by a governmental entity is waived except to the extent provided by the contract if the contract was within the powers granted to the entity and was properly executed and except as provided in W.S. 1‑39‑120(b). The claims procedures of W.S. 1‑39‑113 apply to contractual claims against governmental entities.

Section 3.  This act applies to civil causes of action that are initiated on or after the effective date of this act.

Section 4.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

Passed House, on to Senate, and totally ineffectual due to the Supremacy Clause:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0036

Natural Resource Protection Act.

Sponsored by: Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to protection of constitutional rights; providing a declaration of authority and policy; prohibiting the enforcement of federal rules or regulations regarding federal land management as specified; providing an exception; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 9‑14‑301 through 9‑14‑303 are created to read:

ARTICLE 3

NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT

9‑14‑301.  Short title.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Natural Resource Protection Act."

9‑14‑302.  Declaration of authority and policy.

(a)  The Natural Resource Protection Act is enacted under the authority of the tenth amendment to the United States constitution and Wyoming's agreement with the United States that the state adopted when it joined the union under the United States constitution's system of dual sovereignty.

(b)  The legislature finds and declares:

(i)  The federal government shall comply with federal law when administering federal lands;

(ii)  The federal government arbitrarily restricting significant amounts of federal lands from public use is contrary to managing federal land under principles of multiple use and sustained yield;

(iii)  Any failure by the federal government to abide by the law undermines the rule of law that is vital to our system of government. 

9‑14‑303.  Prohibiting the enforcement of federal regulation regarding federal land management; penalty.

(a)  Upon a determination by the governor, with advice from the attorney general, that an executive order, final rule or regulation of the federal government does not comply with federal laws regarding federal land management and upon providing notice, this state and all political subdivisions of this state shall not use any personnel, funds appropriated by the legislature or any other source of funds that originate within the state of Wyoming to enforce or administer that federal executive order, final rule or regulation. The governor shall not revoke a valid primacy agreement with a federal agency over the regulation and enforcement of a federal law or program until a court of competent jurisdiction determines the federal executive order, final rule or regulation is unlawful.

(b)  Nothing in this act shall limit or restrict a public officer, as defined by W.S. 6‑5‑101(a)(v), from providing assistance to federal authorities for purposes not specifically identified in subsection (a) of this section. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any governmental entity from accepting federal funds for law enforcement purposes.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

February 28, 2024

The Joint Conference Committee was picked to work out the $1B difference between the House and the Senate budgets.  The members are Sens. Dave Kinskey, R-Sheridan, Tim Salazar, R-Riverton, Sens. Anthony Bouchard, R-Cheyenne, Dan Laursen, R-Powell, and Troy McKeown, R-Gillette. Three of the members are extremely conservative.

This signals there's going to be a lot of cutting in the Senate version of the budget.

Chloe's law passed the Senate. The bill bans sexual mutilation of children, something that should simply be overall outright banned.

SENATE FILE NO. SF0099

Chloe's law-children gender change prohibition.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Bouchard, Biteman, Boner, Brennan, Dockstader, French, Hicks, Hutchings, Ide, Kinskey, Kolb, Laursen, D, McKeown, Salazar and Steinmetz and Representative(s) Andrew, Davis, Heiner, Hornok, Jennings, Knapp, Locke, Neiman, Niemiec, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Slagle, Strock, Styvar, Trujillo and Winter

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to public health and safety; prohibiting physicians from performing procedures for children related to gender transitioning and gender reassignment; providing an exception; providing that gender transitioning and reassignment procedures are grounds for suspension or revocation of a physician's or health care provider's license; providing definitions; specifying applicability; requiring rulemaking; and providing for effective dates.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 35‑4‑1001 is created to read:

ARTICLE 10

GENDER‑RELATED PROCEDURES

35‑4‑1001.  Gender transitioning and reassignment procedures for children prohibited.

(a)  As used in this section:

(i)  "Child" means a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age;

(ii)  "Health care provider" means a person other than a physician who is licensed, certified or otherwise authorized by Wyoming law to provide or render health care or to dispense or prescribe a prescription drug in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession;

(iii)  "Physician" means any person licensed to practice medicine in this state by the state board of medicine under the Medical Practice Act.

(b)  Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section and for purposes of transitioning a child's biological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes and endogenous profiles of the child or affirming the child's perception of the child's sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex, no physician or health care provider shall:

(i)  Perform a surgery that sterilizes the child, including castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, orchiectomy, penectomy, phalloplasty and vaginoplasty;

(ii)  Perform a mastectomy;

(iii)  Provide, administer, prescribe or dispense any of the following prescription drugs that induce transient or permanent infertility:

(A)  Puberty suppression or blocking prescription drugs to stop or delay normal puberty;

(B)  Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females;

(C)  Supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males.

(iv)  Remove any otherwise healthy or nondiseased body part or tissue.

(c)  This section shall not apply to:

(i)  Procedures or treatments that are performed with the consent of the child's parent or guardian and are for a child who is born with a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development, including 46, XX chromosomes with virilization, 46, XY with undervirilization or both ovarian and testicular tissue;

(ii)  Any procedure or treatment that is performed with the consent of the child's parent or guardian and is for a child with medically verifiable central precocious puberty.

Section 2.  W.S. 33‑21‑146(a)(xi), (xii) and by creating a new paragraph (xiii), 33‑24‑122(a)(intro), (ix) and by creating a new paragraph (xi) and 33‑26‑402(a) by creating a new paragraph (xxxvi) are amended to read:

33‑21‑146.  Disciplining licensees and certificate holders; grounds.

(a)  The board of nursing may refuse to issue or renew, or may suspend or revoke the license, certificate or temporary permit of any person, or to otherwise discipline a licensee or certificate holder, upon proof that the person:

(xi)  Has failed to submit to a mental, physical or medical competency examination following a proper request by the board made pursuant to board rules and regulations and the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act; or

(xii)  Has violated a previously entered board order;. or

(xiii)  Has violated W.S. 35‑4‑1001.

33‑24‑122.  Revocation or suspension of license and registration; letter of admonition; summary suspension; administrative penalties; probation; grounds.

(a)  The license and registration of any pharmacist may be revoked or suspended by the board of pharmacy or the board may issue a letter of admonition, refuse to issue or renew any license or require successful completion of a rehabilitation program or issue a summary suspension for any one (1) or more of the following causes:

(ix)  For senility or mental impairment which impedes the pharmacist's professional abilities or for habitual personal use of morphine, cocaine or other habit forming drugs or alcohol; or

(xi)  For violating W.S. 35‑4‑1001.

33‑26‑402.  Grounds for suspension; revocation; restriction; imposition of conditions; refusal to renew or other disciplinary action.

(a)  The board may refuse to renew, and may revoke, suspend or restrict a license or take other disciplinary action, including the imposition of conditions or restrictions upon a license on one (1) or more of the following grounds:

(xxxvi)  Violating W.S. 35‑4‑1001.

Section 3.  W.S. 35‑4‑1001, as created by section 1 of this act, shall apply only to conduct or procedures occurring on and after the effective date of this act.

Section 4.  The department of health, state board of medicine and state board of pharmacy shall promulgate all rules necessary to implement this act.

Section 5.  

(a)  Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, this act is effective July 1, 2024.

(b)  Sections 4 and 5 of this act are effective immediately upon completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution.

The bill restructuring Wyoming's tax system died, as we predicted.

A bill eliminating gun free zones in Wyoming passed the House.  My prediction is that it shall die in the Senate.

February 28, cont:

The Senate has voted to defund gender studies and the diversity office at the University of Wyoming.  This is not a surprise,

Right wing populist Senator Bob Ide, on the action, stated:

I think we have a real opportunity to set University of Wyoming apart as a grassroots, traditional-value university.

This was done by way of a footnote in the budget, and it's far from certain that the footnote will survive budget resolution. 

February 29, 2024

A bill to require abortion clinics to be licensed pass the House and is through a Senate committee.  It provides:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0148

Regulation of surgical abortions

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Lawley, Bear and Washut and Senator(s) Biteman, Boner, Brennan, Hutchings, Salazar and Steinmetz

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to public health and safety; requiring the licensure of surgical abortion facilities as specified; requiring licensed physicians to perform abortions after an ultrasound; providing criminal penalties for violations; specifying civil liability for damages resulting from abortions; providing definitions; making conforming amendments; specifying applicability; requiring rulemaking; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 35‑6‑201 through 35‑6‑205 are created to read:

ARTICLE 2

REGULATION OF SURGICAL ABORTIONS

35‑6‑201.  Definitions.

(a)  As used in this article:

(i)  "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug or any other substance, device or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, including the elimination of one (1) or more unborn babies in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn baby. "Abortion" shall not include any use, prescription or means specified in this paragraph if  the use, prescription or means are done with the intent to:

(A)  Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn baby;

(B)  Remove a dead unborn baby caused by spontaneous abortion or intrauterine fetal demise;

(C)  Treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy; or

(D)  Provide treatment for a pregnant woman when a medical procedure or treatment is necessary, based on reasonable medical judgment, to save or preserve the life of the pregnant woman.

(ii)  "Hospital" means those institutions licensed by the Wyoming department of health as hospitals;

(iii)  "Physician" means any person licensed to practice medicine in this state;

(iv)  "Pregnancy" or "pregnant" means the human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn baby or human being within a human female's body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn human being from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth;

(v)  "Reasonable medical judgment" means a medical judgment that would be made or a medical action that would be undertaken by a reasonably prudent, qualified physician who is knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved;

(vi)  "Surgical abortion" means an induced abortion performed or attempted through use of a machine, medical device, surgical instrument or surgical tool, or any combination thereof, to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge and the intent that the termination by those means will cause, with reasonable likelihood, the death of the unborn child;

(vii)  "Surgical abortion facility" means any facility, other than a hospital, that provides a surgical abortion to a woman and performs not less than three (3) first‑trimester surgical abortions in any one (1) month or not less than one (1) second‑trimester or third‑trimester surgical abortion in any one (1) year.

35‑6‑202.  Surgical abortion facilities; licensure requirement; prohibitions; penalties.

(a)  Each surgical abortion facility in Wyoming shall be licensed as an ambulatory surgical center in accordance with W.S. 35‑2‑901 through 35‑2‑914 and the rules of the department of health. Each surgical abortion facility performing surgical abortions shall have a separate license.

(b)  No surgical abortion facility shall provide surgical abortions to any pregnant woman without first being licensed as an ambulatory surgical center.

(c)  Each surgical abortion facility shall comply with all rules of the department of health concerning the operation and regulation of ambulatory surgical centers. No license issued to a surgical abortion facility shall be transferable or assignable to any other person or facility.

(d)  Each licensed physician performing at least one (1) surgical abortion at a surgical abortion facility shall:

(i)  Report each surgical abortion to the department of health and shall attest in the report that the physician is licensed and in good standing with the state board of medicine;

(ii)  Submit documentation in a form and frequency required by the department of health that demonstrates that the licensed physician has admitting privileges at a hospital located not more than ten (10) miles from the abortion facility where the licensed physician is performing or will perform surgical abortions.

(e)  Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Each calendar day in which a violation of this section occurs or continues is a separate offense.

35‑6‑203.  Abortion facilities; surgical abortions; requirements; rulemaking.

(a)  Any surgical abortion performed at a surgical abortion facility in the state shall only be performed by a physician licensed in the state of Wyoming.

(b)  Any person who performs in the state any surgical abortion at a surgical abortion facility in violation of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than fourteen (14) years.

(c)  No person shall perform a surgical abortion at a surgical abortion facility in Wyoming who is not a licensed physician with admitting privileges at a hospital located not more than ten (10) miles from the abortion facility where the surgical abortion is performed.

(d)  Any person who violates subsection (c) of this section or if a pharmacist or physician violates W.S. 35‑6‑205 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000,00). For purposes of this subsection, each surgical abortion at a surgical abortion facility shall constitute a separate offense of subsection (c) of this section.

(e)  The department of health shall promulgate rules necessary to regulate surgical abortion facilities as ambulatory surgical centers under W.S. 35‑2‑901 through 35‑2‑914, provided that the rules:

(i)  Applicable to surgical abortion facilities are not less stringent than those rules applicable to ambulatory surgical centers;

(ii)  Provide for the physical inspection of surgical abortion facilities by the department of health every three (3) years.

35‑6‑204.  Applicability; effect.

If any provision of this article conflicts with the Life is a Human Right Act or W.S. 35‑6‑139, the provisions of the Life is a Human Right Act and W.S. 35‑6‑139 shall control over this article to the extent that the Life is a Human Right Act and W.S. 35‑6‑139 are enforceable.

35‑6‑205.  Abortion facilities; licensure requirements verification; prohibitions; penalties.

Not less than forty‑eight (48) hours before a pregnant woman procures the drugs or substances for a chemical abortion, before a physician or pharmacist dispenses the drugs or substances necessary for a chemical abortion or before a pregnant woman undergoes a surgical abortion, the physician or pharmacist shall ensure that the pregnant woman receives an ultrasound in order to determine the gestational age of the unborn child, to determine the location of the pregnancy, to verify a viable intrauterine pregnancy and to provide the pregnant woman the opportunity to view the active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible. The provider of the ultrasound shall provide the pregnant woman with a document that specifies the date, time and place of the ultrasound.

Section 2.  W.S. 35‑2‑901(a)(ii) is amended to read:

35‑2‑901.  Definitions; applicability of provisions.

(a)  As used in this act:

(ii)  "Ambulatory surgical center" means a facility which provides surgical treatment to patients not requiring hospitalization and is not part of a hospital or offices of private physicians, dentists or podiatrists. "Ambulatory surgical center" shall include any surgical abortion facility as defined by W.S. 35‑6‑201(a)(vii);

Section 3.

(a)  Nothing in this act shall be construed as creating an individual right to abortion.

(b)  It is the intent of the legislature that this act shall not be construed as holding abortion as lawful in the state pending a decision from a court of competent jurisdiction on the current state of the law.

(c)  It is the intent of the legislature that this act shall not recognize or define abortion as a health care decision under Article 1, section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution.

Section 4.  The department of health shall promulgate all rules necessary to implement this act.

Section 5.  This act is effective immediately upon completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution.

This may seem like an odd bill in that the legislature has outlawed abortion already, although the disposition of that law is in peril due to a poorly thought out paranoid Wyoming Constitutional amendment that was aimed at the fictional threat of Obamacare "death panels", a good example of paranoia in operation combined with the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Those who backed that law should be ashamed of themselves.  Anyhow, this bill seeks to regulate infanticide abattoirs if they're allowed to exist, and during the period in which the issue is pending in what seems like a glacially slow Teton County proceeding.

It might be questioned why no effort has been made to repeal the silly Obamacare Paranoia Amendment, but none has.  Probably "They're Going To Make Me Vaccinate" paranoia has something to do with that.

March 1, 2024

A bill to relocate bighorn sheep from Sweetwater Rocks has gotten through a House Committee after passing the Senate.  The measure is designed to protect domestic sheep.

SENATE FILE NO. SF0118

Bighorn and domestic sheep relocation-federal action.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Hicks and Representative(s) Western

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to wildlife and livestock; providing legislative findings; requiring the game and fish department to relocate or remove bighorn sheep from the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area in response to specified federal action; providing for the reimbursement of costs for relocation or removal of bighorn sheep; requiring and authorizing attorney general action as specified; amending the duties of the wildlife/livestock research partnership board; providing appropriations; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 11‑19‑605 is created to read:

11‑19‑605.  Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep relocation and removal; legislative findings; reimbursement; attorney general action.

(a)  The legislature finds and declares that it is the state's policy to vigorously defend its interests in maintaining and enhancing viable livestock grazing operations on public lands in conjunction with the conservation and maintenance of healthy bighorn sheep populations in the state of Wyoming. These two (2) policies are mutually compatible as demonstrated since the adoption of the collaboratively developed Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan in 2004, which was codified into law under W.S. 11‑19‑604 in 2015. The legislature further finds and declares that:

(i)  Reintroduction of bighorn sheep and management action to protect existing populations of bighorn sheep on federal public lands has been effectively accomplished in conformance with the Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan;

(ii)  All wildlife in the state of Wyoming is the property of the state, and it is the policy of the state to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife;

(iii)  Any removal of bighorn sheep from the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area under this act shall not be attributable to domestic livestock grazing on federal bureau of land management administered lands. Rather, the removal of bighorn sheep shall be directly attributable to:

(A)  Onerous federal regulation that unduly impedes the state of Wyoming's ability to manage wildlife and domestic livestock grazing in conformance with the Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan;

(B)  Third‑party litigation designed to use bighorn sheep as a means of eliminating domestic livestock grazing on bureau of land management administered lands in and adjacent to the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area.

(iv)  The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the state.

(b)  In conformance with the Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan in W.S. 11‑19‑604 and pursuant to W.S. 23‑1‑103, the game and fish department shall relocate or remove bighorn sheep from the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area if any federal judicial action or federal agency action requires or could require the following:

(i)  The elimination or suspension of domestic sheep grazing or trailing; or

(ii)  Any changes to a United States bureau of land management resource management plan, grazing allotments or livestock grazing agreements due to the presence of bighorn sheep in the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area or any adjacent grazing allotment that is not in a designated bighorn sheep herd unit after July 1, 2024 without the consent of the grazing permittee.

(c)  Any relocation or removal of bighorn sheep from the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area required by subsection (b) of this section shall commence as soon as practicable but not later than six (6) months after the Wyoming department of agriculture certifies to the governor that a condition specified in subsection (b) of this section is met. The governor shall notify the game and fish department that the removal of bighorn sheep from the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area shall commence in accordance with this section.

(d)  The game and fish department shall be responsible for the expedient removal of bighorn sheep that stray outside the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area if that straying or foray is not into another designated herd unit.

(e)  The state and its agencies shall coordinate and assist the Wyoming congressional delegation in pursuing changes to federal law, rules and policies in order to bring them into conformance with the Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan created under W.S. 11‑19‑604.

(f)  The Wyoming game and fish department shall not seek to change, alter or otherwise affect changes to domestic livestock grazing authorization on public and state lands due to the presence of bighorn sheep in the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area or adjacent grazing allotments that are not within an existing bighorn sheep herd unit.

(g)  The game and fish department shall be reimbursed for the costs of relocation or removal of bighorn sheep pursuant to subsection (b) of this section from any available funds in the wildlife/livestock disease research partnership account created by W.S. 11‑19‑603.

(h)  With the approval of the governor, the attorney general shall seek to intervene in any lawsuit if a federal action is contrary to the state's policy regarding Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep set forth in subsection (a) of this section or that is inconsistent with the Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan.

(j)  With the approval of the governor, the attorney general shall file an action against any federal agency to stop the enforcement, administration or implementation of any federal agency rule, instructional memo, handbook or other action taken by a federal agency if the rule, instructional memo, handbook or other action is contrary to the Wyoming bighorn/domestic sheep plan or is otherwise contrary to law.

Section 2.  W.S. 11‑19‑602(b) by creating a new paragraph (vii) and 11‑19‑603 are amended to read:

11‑19‑602.  Wyoming wildlife/livestock disease research partnership board created; membership; duties; purposes.

(b)  The board shall:

(vii)  Allocate funds for monitoring, tracking and conducting disease surveillance before and following the introduction of bighorn sheep in the Sweetwater Rocks cooperative review area.

11‑19‑603.  Account created.

There is created a wildlife/livestock disease research partnership account. Funds from this account shall be used only for purposes specified in W.S. 11‑19‑601 through 11‑19‑604 11‑19‑605. Any interest earned on the account shall remain within the account.

Section 3.

(a)  There is appropriated one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) from the general fund to the wildlife/livestock disease research partnership account for purposes of reimbursing the game and fish department for the costs of relocation or removal of bighorn sheep under this act. This appropriation shall be for the period beginning with the effective date of this act and ending June 30, 2030. This appropriation shall not be transferred or expended for any other purpose. Notwithstanding W.S. 9‑2‑1008, 9‑2‑1012(e) and 9‑4‑207, this appropriation shall not revert until June 30, 2030.

(b)  There is appropriated fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) from the general fund to the department of agriculture for the rangeland health assessment program to conduct rangeland monitoring of the United States bureau of land management grazing allotments in or adjacent to the Sweetwater Rocks bighorn sheep cooperative review area. This appropriation shall be for the period beginning with the effective date of this act and ending June 30, 2030. This appropriation shall not be transferred or expended for any other purpose. Notwithstanding W.S. 9‑2‑1008, 9‑2‑1012(e) and 9‑4‑207, this appropriation shall not revert until June 30, 2030.

Section 4.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

The area is near Agate Flats in Fremont County.

March 1, cont:

Governor Gordon Signs First Bills of 2024 Legislative Session 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon signed the first bills of the 2024 Legislative session at the Capitol today.

The first bill to be signed by the Governor was Senate File 0004 Rehiring retired firefighters-continued retirement benefits. Sponsored by the Joint Labor, Health and Social Services committee, the bill allows retired firefighters to be rehired while continuing to receive retirement benefits, including a pension.

The Governor signed the following bills into law today:

Enrolled Act # Bill No. Bill Title

SEA0001 SF0017 Plane coordinates system-amendments.

SEA0002 SF0015 Acceptance of retrocession-federal military installations.

SEA0003 SF0004 Rehiring retired firefighters-continued retirement benefits.

Last Prior Edition:

The 2024 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part 3. The start of the budget session.

Appendix:

The 2024 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part 3 Appendix. Bill Status at the end of Week 2.