>> 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.
Then, without the power of the state, how do distributionists achieve their goals? Even the above stated and limited goals? Just WHO applies subsidiarity upon the economic and political order?
It's 100% voluntary? They would ask that the collective owners of corporations surrender their ownership interest voluntarily so that families could own those means of production?
Or, perhaps they would ask that "natural monopolies" surrender growth and efficiencies so that grandma can pay $275/month for a phone that only calls those other phones produced by the cottage industry phone company that services only Puyallup, WA?
What I am saying is that their goals cannot be achieved, in real terms, without the coercive power of the state. Short of that coercive power it's nothing more than the bleating of an utopian. As soon as implementation is attempted it requires the power of the state.
Oh sure, there have been and will continue to be those who volunteer themselves to such goals...great. Nobody objects to that.
But anyone who values individual liberty will not support the implementation of such goals coercively by any entity.