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?
>> 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. <<
Absolutely not! You just PRESUME that direct action by the state is the ONLY way to get anything done; you’ve falled into the trap of the liberals. “Seeks to ensure that most...” means nothing similar to “enlists the state to forcibly require that most...”
Rather, distributists recommend a series of policies which would reach this goal, the majority of which involve RETRACTING state influence in the economy, allowing entropy to bring the means of production to the greater number of people.
That is not to say that no distributists have ever proposed new government action to accomplish this. For one, most distributists imagine a very vigorous collection of laws against restraint of trade, such as, for instance, establishing exclusive dealerships. As mentioned above, Belloc proposed prohibiting usury. But there is no seizure of wealth scheme, because distributism is the economic application of subsidiarity, and the entire purpose of subsidiarity is to ensure that there is no entity powerful enough to redistribute wealth by fiat.
Think what you like or go read the histories of both the Anthracite region and the Steel Centers from Pittsburgh over to the Mon Valley. There were all sorts of proposals flying around and an awful lot of them were intended to be an alternative to having workers become unionized due to the fear of unions common at the time.
A great many groups proposed all sorts of schemes that thought were morally superior and some companies were already doing almost exactly what proponents of distributism believed in with no one at all forcing them to do a thing. That's not some form of statism no matter what the “pure theory” was in England or among the eggheads. The issue was, I thought, what Catholic social thinkers of the day, in this country, were proposing, not what some group or another considered to be the pure form of the idea.
Other than the usual socialists calling themselves anything but socialist and some anarchists advocating the destruction of all forms of both corporations and government, no one was proposing any coercion to force distributism on society. How something advocates thought would be adopted because of the obvious moral improvment they felt would result becomes worker, state, community, or some other form of collective control, I don't know. Whatever it “implies” in theory, what was proposed and even considered in some places was nothing like what you're saying nor was it like the “pure” theory you refer to.