What you must understand is that Distributism is an economic application of Subsidiarism; it’s antithetical to state management of justice and resources... which is why distributists have had a difficult time forming a political movement. All stripes of politicians recognize it would strip them of power.
The only sense in which the government “does” anything for Distributism is that it pulls back from its role in protecting the market shares of behemoth corporations, by means such as reducing regulation, withdrawing from market management, removing a tax structure which favors supply line dominance, reforming intellectual property rights (which are supposed to support innovation, not destroy it), and prevent exclusive contracts. You’ll note that the first four of those five are downright libertarian.
Thank you for your explanatory posts.
It’s been a while since I read Belloc on distributism, but doesn’t he advocate the state introduce impediments (e.g. progressive taxation, etc.) to discourage market-share growth?
Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of wealth). While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Belloc stated, the distributive state (the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production."[4] This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[5]
It implies, by it's very nature, that the state has the power to seize property and give it to those it believes are deserving.
If not the state, who would have the power of coercion necessary to bring about such utopia?
What person could not see that as a threat to individual liberty?