Discussion of Distributism

Am reading a discussion of distributism (find the word and click)in Franciscan University's University Concourse. So far so interesting if not revelatory. I increasingly wonder if the reason it is taken about as seriously as third candidates in U.S. presidential elections is not one of its practicality, but an imaginative problem. For some reason I can't clear my mind of an association with an Amish (some more)or organico-hippie or total-Celtic-re-enactment lifestyle. There is no reason why we shouldn't have funky Macs (computer or sartorial) or glamorous shoes in a distributist economy. Trendy bars could still exist. Pink would not be banned: we would not all have to amble around in sandals and homespun pinafores. And if I have this problem, though I have thought it through several times, what about those with a strong personal attachment to other inimical forms of economic organisation? (cf. Provincial Entrist Conspiracy)

There are two questions that interest me, beyond getting a better grip of the principles than the shaky one I have now: the practicalities of promoting and implementing an economic policy based on distributist principles, and the extent to which it matches, and Other Options Favoured By Lots of Sneaky Americans Giving Money to Subvert My Fellow Slavs don't, the teaching of the Magisterium on the organisation of civil society.