Questions about Subsidiarity and Just Taxation

[Illmatic15]

I have now come to terms with the Catholic principle of just taxation. Previously, I had been under the impression that ALL taxation was theft but I have come to realize that force may be necessary in times of emergency. After all, I believe Thomas Aquinas said something of the sort that in times of life or death, all property is common (if you can find the quote that would be appreciated). However, the same thing can be said about the just war doctrine, since that war in general is a grave evil, but can be justified under strict terms. Since that war is something that is only justified as a last resort, shouldn’t the same be said about taxation? Man has right to private property, and theft is wrong, but the universal destination of goods can overrule one man’s claim over something. However, shouldn’t we try means of persuasion and private charity before we decide to use force to make ends meet?

This last question brings me to my question about just how the principle of subsidiarity is to be exercised. The basic principle is that larger bodies should not do what smaller bodies can do better or equally as well. However, what would be the case for local charities (or chapters of charities) vs local governments. I would think local charitable means should be tried first before local government levies taxes, but does anyone know the correct way to interpret this principle?

Pax Christi

 

[jlkelly]

The following is my interpretation: The Law of Moses forbade all but two kinds of public revenue, the tithe and the head tax. The tithe was a “rent” on a family’s inheritance in land. The portion of the crop or herd was the means of paying it. Later, after money had been invented, payment of the tithe in money was acceptable. The tithe was designed to cover both the religious needs of the community and what we would today call civil. Only the best ten percent of the tithe was used to support the religious establishment. The other 90% paid for civil government.
When kings digressed from these two proper systems, the Bible noted these digressions as sinful (see Solomon’s use of forced labor). Another of the payments that was mentioned and strictly prohibited was the payment of tribute or some other tax to a foreign ruler. Every time this happened in the OT, it was noted as against God’s will and Law.
So when Jesus was asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, there was a context to deal with.
The land was created by God. He had a right to claim rent for its use. The community enhanced the land’s value through public works, rule of law, a strong defense, etc… So the community had a claim on the land rent as well. One’s labor and capital were not made by God or the community, they were made by individuals. So when Jesus said, “pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” his hearers understood what should be paid to Caesar - nothing! These people had nothing that belonged to Caesar. Now Caesar could take what he wanted because he had the sword. But what he wanted was not what belonged to him, but what belonged to the people.
To take people’s labor or their capital from them is a violation of “Thou shalt not steal.” Even if people vote to steal, it is still theft. Democracy cannot justify theft.
So what is the moral source of public revenue? Taxes (rent) on land value. A head tax. User fees (like highway tolls or National Park fees).
This is not Church doctrine or teaching, but I think it is consistent with scripture and our sense of morality.

 

[Illmatic15]

The following is my interpretation: The Law of Moses forbade all but two kinds of public revenue, the tithe and the head tax. The tithe was a “rent” on a family’s inheritance in land. The portion of the crop or herd was the means of paying it. Later, after money had been invented, payment of the tithe in money was acceptable. The tithe was designed to cover both the religious needs of the community and what we would today call civil. Only the best ten percent of the tithe was used to support the religious establishment. The other 90% paid for civil government.
When kings digressed from these two proper systems, the Bible noted these digressions as sinful (see Solomon’s use of forced labor). Another of the payments that was mentioned and strictly prohibited was the payment of tribute or some other tax to a foreign ruler. Every time this happened in the OT, it was noted as against God’s will and Law.
So when Jesus was asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, there was a context to deal with.
The land was created by God. He had a right to claim rent for its use. The community enhanced the land’s value through public works, rule of law, a strong defense, etc… So the community had a claim on the land rent as well. One’s labor and capital were not made by God or the community, they were made by individuals. So when Jesus said, “pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” his hearers understood what should be paid to Caesar - nothing! These people had nothing that belonged to Caesar. Now Caesar could take what he wanted because he had the sword. But what he wanted was not what belonged to him, but what belonged to the people.
To take people’s labor or their capital from them is a violation of “Thou shalt not steal.” Even if people vote to steal, it is still theft. Democracy cannot justify theft.
So what is the moral source of public revenue? Taxes (rent) on land value. A head tax. User fees (like highway tolls or National Park fees).
This is not Church doctrine or teaching, but I think it is consistent with scripture and our sense of morality.

I’ve heard this interpretation of “Render unto Caesar” before, and I don’t know for sure whether or not it is true, but I am open to it. One of the things I took from this is that Jesus transformed this question into a religious one, by adding that we are to render unto God what is God’s. Many people interpret this as Christ emphasizing the importance of state responsibilities, but I take it as an emphasis on one’s duties towards God, and to detach oneself from materialism and turn the other cheek by paying their taxes. After all, Romans 13, the passage infamously used to support the statist machine, comes right after Romans 12, a chapter that focuses on returning good to evil rather than hate (keep in mind the original letter was not divided into chapters).

Also, I still have a belief that taxation in general is theft, however I think it can be justified as a last resort in emergency cases, just like war. Even if taxes are unjust, I still think we are to pay them as a way of turning the other cheek and returning love to evil. However, I admire the work of some faithful Catholic activists like Dorothy Day who lived below the poverty line and were then exempt from taxes as a form of protest against an institution based on force and coercion.
Peace brother

 

[GratefulFred]

We have theory vs reality.

In theory, each of us is free to provide for ourselves and reap the reward to the degree we are successful.

In reality, we soon learn we cannot provide all that we need and thus entered into agreements to trade our goods and services to mutual benefit. We invented money because it was easier to trade my goods and services to one who needed and then buy other goods and services I wanted from those who had it.

We see in the New Testament that the Apostles quickly realized that there was too much to do themselves well, so they assigned certain tasks others under their authority.

Today, we need certain good goods such as roads, schools, police, firemen, etc.that would be way too expensive individually, so we agree to pay taxes in return for common goods and services. This is NOT stealing. This is a clear exchange of one service for another.

We also need courts, jails, national defense, etc. Again, our taxes are an exchange.

We also have the poor and incapable that must be fed and housed and cared for. That service is fully part of Christ’s commandment to love others. When we give our money through private charity it has great moral value. But if we do it through taxes it is still morally good unless we resent caring for those who truly need it.

I think “subsidiarity” is important because, when done up close and personal, we can see just who is in need and who is a moocher who could do something in return but escapes responsibility because a law lets him. Waste not want not.

In theory, it is morally much better to use subsidiary than to delegate to a central government far way. But as long as we use government, we should also hold them accountable for using our taxes for MORAL ends, not immoral ends.

 

[Illmatic15]

We have theory vs reality.

In theory, each of us is free to provide for ourselves and reap the reward to the degree we are successful.

In reality, we soon learn we cannot provide all that we need and thus entered into agreements to trade our goods and services to mutual benefit. We invented money because it was easier to trade my goods and services to one who needed and then buy other goods and services I wanted from those who had it.

We see in the New Testament that the Apostles quickly realized that there was too much to do themselves well, so they assigned certain tasks others under their authority.

Today, we need certain good goods such as roads, schools, police, firemen, etc.that would be way too expensive individually, so we agree to pay taxes in return for common goods and services. This is NOT stealing. This is a clear exchange of one service for another.

We also need courts, jails, national defense, etc. Again, our taxes are an exchange.

We also have the poor and incapable that must be fed and housed and cared for. That service is fully part of Christ’s commandment to love others. When we give our money through private charity it has great moral value. But if we do it through taxes it is still morally good unless we resent caring for those who truly need it.

I think “subsidiarity” is important because, when done up close and personal, we can see just who is in need and who is a moocher who could do something in return but escapes responsibility because a law lets him. Waste not want not.

In theory, it is morally much better to use subsidiary than to delegate to a central government far way. But as long as we use government, we should also hold them accountable for using our taxes for MORAL ends, not immoral ends.

I agree, subsidiarity only makes sense and I find local bodies typically do a better job with local problems, unlike the over-extensive federal government we have today. However, I disagree that taxation is just “another exchange”. Taxation is forced upon the person, even if the person doesn’t want it. What I’m saying is that taxation should only be used as a last resort when trying to achieve the common good.

I appreciate all the opinions, but I don’t feel like anyone here has actually answered my questions in the OP

1. Shouldn’t just taxation only be used as a last resort with private charity being tried first, like how just war should only be a last resort with negotiations and diplomacy being tried first? After all, war, when unjust, is just mindless murder on a mass scale, and taxation, when unjustified, is just a nice word for theft.
2. I am confused over the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. In addressing enconomic issues, does it only state that local GOVERNMENT should be trying to achieve the common good or should voluntary means such as private charity or local charity organizations be tried first?

The point I am trying to make with my first question is based off the logical assumption that one can be justified in stealing from another when it is the only way of providing someone basic human rights, such as food, shelter, and health care, and all peaceful means have been unsuccessfully tried. I am extending this argument to that of taxation, to truly determine what constitutes a just tax and to provide sound reasoning as to why just taxation is not theft, and to give the market or the Church a chance to provide welfare before the government does.

 

[jlkelly]

Again, just my own thoughts. First, God implied that within the annual land rent would be enough to fund both the religious sector and the civil sector. This land rent was called the tithe. 10% of it went to the religious establishment and fully 90% to civil uses. (Incidentally, the Levites, who were given 48 towns, did not pay a tithe, not because they had no income - they held all the “urban” jobs - but, according to Numbers 18:20-32, because they had received no inheritance in land.)
So even with the relatively meager land rents that resulted, there was enough to cover roads, bridges, irrigation systems, stocking the armories, etc. This is not theory. This is what actually happened through much of ancient Israel’s history. Kings who broke these rules were seen to be self-aggrandizing lawbreakers, not folks who put reality ahead of “theory.”
Please check out my book, “The Other Law of Moses.” It’s at Amazon.
In today’s world there is plenty of land rent that is not claimed by the community, even though the community created it. There is enough to pay for all the legitimate efforts of civil government. Instead, the community claims the labor and capital of its members, to which it has no moral right. And the result: we tax labor very heavily and we have high unemployment and underemployment. We tax capital heavily and our cities become run down and deteriorate. If you tax something (except land) you get less of it. Since we tax the wrong things, we harm the natural economy, and our governments are almost always broke and the people are denied their right to human flourishing.
As far as subsidiarity is concerned, I think that it does indeed extend down to charities and individual actions. I do not believe it only refers to government.

 

[GratefulFred]

Thanks JLKelly for the history. I appreciate it and hope to get your book.

To the question: Just taxation ONLY AFTER charity has been tried first:

IMO, Because of Jesus Christ’s commandment to love others, the world saw, for the first time, a group of people dedicated to God - Christians - who actually did help the poor. At least much more than the help given before them. Charity from the heart for the love of God, not forced from government. Still the government taxed: Provided defense, roads, water works, justice, etc. Did high government officials live well? yes. They were well paid for being charge.

We have not been taught the full history of the Catholic Church’s impact on the development of the Western World. Hospitals and schools regardless of income, for example, and the synergy from those efforts.

In today’s world, we are far removed from "try Charity first and if not enough then tax. " It has been and will be a mix of both. Our tax structure changes constantly. I think perhaps 40% of Americans earn too little to pay income tax but they pay sales tax, gasoline tax, social security, Medicare, etc., not to mention property tax. And a certain amount of every product purchased includes the taxes the maker and seller have to pay.

Much of the taxes we all pay go to provide the services I mentioned in my first response. And a good portion goes to what could be considered charitable care of the needy. I do not mind paying taxes for these legitimate expenses. I would think that most of us give to charities in addition to paying taxes.

But I wonder about the amount our government borrows to provide goods and services. The Big G spends more than it taxes. It borrows. That borrowed money is used for our society’s benefit and represent LESS money available to the society that lends. We currently owe more than $17 trillion to others.

I do not like government having that much control over us. But we did vote them in and we can vote them out. We do not. Too many of us like government support. And I rather doubt that if our taxes went down significantly and the services went down as well, that private charity would fill the gap so that services remained stable. Sadly, I think too many of us would not increase our charitable contributions.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I agree, subsidiarity only makes sense and I find local bodies typically do a better job with local problems, unlike the over-extensive federal government we have today. However, I disagree that taxation is just “another exchange”. Taxation is forced upon the person, even if the person doesn’t want it. What I’m saying is that taxation should only be used as a last resort when trying to achieve the common good.

I appreciate all the opinions, but I don’t feel like anyone here has actually answered my questions in the OP

1. Shouldn’t just taxation only be used as a last resort with private charity being tried first, like how just war should only be a last resort with negotiations and diplomacy being tried first? After all, war, when unjust, is just mindless murder on a mass scale, and taxation, when unjustified, is just a nice word for theft.

More than theft…

Just taxation for “charitable purposes” is nothing more than “taking from Peter and giving to Paul”

If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. If you notice that this is sounding like communism…go to the head of the class.

1. I am confused over the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. In addressing enconomic issues, does it only state that local GOVERNMENT should be trying to achieve the common good or should voluntary means such as private charity or local charity organizations be tried first?

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity begins at the lowest level…individuals helping one another. Then it dangerously moves to local government and beyond.

Unless a government is specifically established to provide charity it has no business robbing Peter to give to Paul. The ONLY way a government serves the common good is to provide ALL authorized services equally.

The point I am trying to make with my first question is based off the logical assumption that one can be justified in stealing from another when it is the only way of providing someone basic human rights, such as food, shelter, and health care, and all peaceful means have been unsuccessfully tried. I am extending this argument to that of taxation, to truly determine what constitutes a just tax and to provide sound reasoning as to why just taxation is not theft, and to give the market or the Church a chance to provide welfare before the government does.

Stealing is never justified. How does one know the needs of the one he steals from…for whatever reason.

If you take money from another by force, you are a thief under the law and can be punished. We have no right to violate the property rights of another. Therefore we do not have the right to establish a government and authorize it to take from one and give to another. When a government does that it is acting beyond its authority.

 

[Illmatic15]

Again, just my own thoughts. First, God implied that within the annual land rent would be enough to fund both the religious sector and the civil sector. This land rent was called the tithe. 10% of it went to the religious establishment and fully 90% to civil uses. (Incidentally, the Levites, who were given 48 towns, did not pay a tithe, not because they had no income - they held all the “urban” jobs - but, according to Numbers 18:20-32, because they had received no inheritance in land.)
So even with the relatively meager land rents that resulted, there was enough to cover roads, bridges, irrigation systems, stocking the armories, etc. This is not theory. This is what actually happened through much of ancient Israel’s history. Kings who broke these rules were seen to be self-aggrandizing lawbreakers, not folks who put reality ahead of “theory.”
Please check out my book, “The Other Law of Moses.” It’s at Amazon.
In today’s world there is plenty of land rent that is not claimed by the community, even though the community created it. There is enough to pay for all the legitimate efforts of civil government. Instead, the community claims the labor and capital of its members, to which it has no moral right. And the result: we tax labor very heavily and we have high unemployment and underemployment. We tax capital heavily and our cities become run down and deteriorate. If you tax something (except land) you get less of it. Since we tax the wrong things, we harm the natural economy, and our governments are almost always broke and the people are denied their right to human flourishing.
As far as subsidiarity is concerned, I think that it does indeed extend down to charities and individual actions. I do not believe it only refers to government.

I agree the tax system is totally screwed and has done more harm to the economy than good. Again, I find taxation in general to be theft in disguise, but I do think that it can be justified as a last resort to meet the common good. And I myself am interested in the Biblical welfare system, and just how low taxes were to meet society’s requirements.
However, it seems to me that the Biblical tithe was a system that wasn’t exactly enforced by any human authority, but instead by the punishment of God on those who refused to pay them. Since that you seem to know quite a bit on this (btw your book looks very interesting) do you have any idea on whether any human authority enforced these? It doesn’t seem so because no punishment is laid out in scripture about just what to do with those who refuse to pay them.

 

[Illmatic15]

Thanks JLKelly for the history. I appreciate it and hope to get your book.

To the question: Just taxation ONLY AFTER charity has been tried first:

IMO, Because of Jesus Christ’s commandment to love others, the world saw, for the first time, a group of people dedicated to God - Christians - who actually did help the poor. At least much more than the help given before them. Charity from the heart for the love of God, not forced from government. Still the government taxed: Provided defense, roads, water works, justice, etc. Did high government officials live well? yes. They were well paid for being charge.

We have not been taught the full history of the Catholic Church’s impact on the development of the Western World. Hospitals and schools regardless of income, for example, and the synergy from those efforts.

In today’s world, we are far removed from "try Charity first and if not enough then tax. " It has been and will be a mix of both. Our tax structure changes constantly. I think perhaps 40% of Americans earn too little to pay income tax but they pay sales tax, gasoline tax, social security, Medicare, etc., not to mention property tax. And a certain amount of every product purchased includes the taxes the maker and seller have to pay.

Much of the taxes we all pay go to provide the services I mentioned in my first response. And a good portion goes to what could be considered charitable care of the needy. I do not mind paying taxes for these legitimate expenses. I would think that most of us give to charities in addition to paying taxes.

But I wonder about the amount our government borrows to provide goods and services. The Big G spends more than it taxes. It borrows. That borrowed money is used for our society’s benefit and represent LESS money available to the society that lends. We currently owe more than $17 trillion to others.

I do not like government having that much control over us. But we did vote them in and we can vote them out. We do not. Too many of us like government support. And I rather doubt that if our taxes went down significantly and the services went down as well, that private charity would fill the gap so that services remained stable. Sadly, I think too many of us would not increase our charitable contributions.

Actually I think people would probably increase charity. I have read that if all taxes were abolished, the average American person would be three times richer. Even if that’s not the correct number, people are still going to get richer! I say we should at least give the market a chance before we get the big bad government involved. After all it seems rather strange that a practicing member of a faith that teaches peace and love would be so much in favor of using force and coercion to achieve something. However, there are times where force might be necessary but should only be used as a last resort.

 

[Illmatic15]

More than theft…

Just taxation for “charitable purposes” is nothing more than “taking from Peter and giving to Paul”

If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. If you notice that this is sounding like communism…go to the head of the class.

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity begins at the lowest level…individuals helping one another. Then it dangerously moves to local government and beyond.

Unless a government is specifically established to provide charity it has no business robbing Peter to give to Paul. The ONLY way a government serves the common good is to provide ALL authorized services equally.

Stealing is never justified. How does one know the needs of the one he steals from…for whatever reason.

If you take money from another by force, you are a thief under the law and can be punished. We have no right to violate the property rights of another. Therefore we do not have the right to establish a government and authorize it to take from one and give to another. When a government does that it is acting beyond its authority.

I am actually very much in agreement with you. No man can freely redistribute ones property as if it is their own. Believe me, taxation in general is theft, and I am not saying one should rob Peter to pay Paul. One man use the money of his own pockets to meet the ends he desires. However, and even though I don’t like to use hypotheticals, imagine a village of people is flooded and hundreds of people are dying and need urgent health care, starving and need nourishment, and are homeless and need shelter. Very little charity has been contributed and the community does not have enough resources to stay alive. Now don’t you think redistribution might be necessary in a situation like this to keep all of the villagers alive?

The right to property must surely be protected, but the right to life proceeds this. Btw I liked how you pointed out how subsidiarity dangerously moves up to higher levels of government. Government is a dangerous device that must be controlled and very decentralized. This is why I am morally opposed to the state.

 

[Illmatic15]

Btw I found a definitive answer to my question on subsidiarity! Pius XI stated about subsidiarity “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.” This obviously states that private/individual means must be attempted before the community (aka local govt.). Thank you for all your help.

However, my question on taxation is still open.

 

[jlkelly]

I do not like government having that much control over us. But we did vote them in and we can vote them out. We do not. Too many of us like government support. And I rather doubt that if our taxes went down significantly and the services went down as well, that private charity would fill the gap so that services remained stable. Sadly, I think too many of us would not increase our charitable contributions.

GratefulFred, a couple of things: First, if we reduced taxes (and regulation, another tax on capital) enough, we would probably see more economic activity. That would mean more jobs and more employment of capital. So the number of folks in some kind of distress would diminish, thereby reducing the claims upon government to take up the slack that overwhelmed charities have a hard time doing.
Secondly, and more of my opinion, God implies in giving us his economic Law that if we would follow his way, we would not need any governmentalized “charity.” There would be far less distress, and most of what remained would be the result of exceptions such as disability, mental disfunction, widowed single motherhood, etc. Very little would come from being laid off and unable to get another job. Charities could easily handle the load.
When ancient Israel was following this Law, it had centuries’-long periods where there were almost no poor people, and the great bulk of those few poor were widows, orphans, the diseased and the disabled. THe Law anticipated these and made provision for them.
This was unlike any other advanced nation, where a significant part of the population was poor.
When Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you,” I believe he meant it as a rebuke to his apostles, mired as they were in the “reality” of their day and time. He was tired, but also frustrated by the nard incident. They’d been with him for three years and they still didn’t get it. Succor for the poor is found in God’s Law, not in ours (obviously).

 

[GratefulFred]

I appreciate the comments. I am learning more. Here is a good article I found:

catholicmoraltheology.com/subsidiarity-is-a-two-sided-coin/

On a personal basis, I am so very grateful for what God has given me and allowed me to acquire that I feel I must share some of my success with others not so fortunate. I see this as part of the great commandment to love others. I can only worry that I am not sharing enough, preferring to ensure my family is sustained now and in the future. It is important to me that we are not a burden on others any more than absolutely necessary. But sharing is important if I want to have some small claim of loving others.

Now I can share one on one. My “dollar” into a needful person’s hand with a hug and encouraging words. And perhaps on a regular basis with that person building up a personal relationship. That would be true personal love, I think. I doubt I could fulfill all the needs of that person.

I also can and do give to local charities and international ones too. I understand that lagrer organizations can achieve a greater effectiveness.

And of course, I pay my taxes knowing that a significant amount goes to caring for the needy.

For me, I see two major paths in caring for the needy: Charities and government. If, for a simple example, it takes $100 million and 1,000 people to provide aid each year, our choice is whether it is ALL by charity, or ALL by government, or some mix of both. We live in a mixed world. I am aware that many charities apply for government grants - tax money applied by charities. For several years I audited the local St Vincent De Paul Society.

I cannot see any major change in the mix we have. Yes, I prefer more by charity and less by government. To use a simple example again: If the taxes from 20 million people went down $5,000 a year ($100 million) would those 20 million people transfer their entire $5,000 to charity? Or some significantly lesser amount? If significantly less then the unmet needs would increase. So perhaps we do need tax money contributions.

Again, for me, it is theory versus reality. Needs should be met.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am actually very much in agreement with you.

Thank you…

No man can freely redistribute ones property as if it is their own. Believe me, taxation in general is theft, and I am not saying one should rob Peter to pay Paul. One man use the money of his own pockets to meet the ends he desires. However, and even though I don’t like to use hypotheticals, imagine a village of people is flooded and hundreds of people are dying and need urgent health care, starving and need nourishment, and are homeless and need shelter. Very little charity has been contributed and the community does not have enough resources to stay alive. Now don’t you think redistribution might be necessary in a situation like this to keep all of the villagers alive?

Interesting hypothetical.

In this case redistribution (or aid) would be necessary…but from where?

Suppose this is a village in a Third World country with barely enough resources to maintain a government…who provides the urgent health care, food and shelter?

American Charities (?) Of course.

Dependence on government, ANY government, is a shaky situation to be avoided at all costs.

Hurricane Sandy was a great example.Thousands of expensive beach homes along the New Jersey coast were damaged or destroyed. The owners of these homes tend to be self reliant. Their homes were insured and they heeded warnings to evacuate. Those homes were repaired or rebuilt in short order. Other people who tend to rely on government found long waits, mountains of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape keeping them from their homes. Many remain “homeless” today.

The right to property must surely be protected, but the right to life proceeds this. Btw I liked how you pointed out how subsidiarity dangerously moves up to higher levels of government. Government is a dangerous device that must be controlled and very decentralized. This is why I am morally opposed to the state.

Join the Club.

 

[jlkelly]

Furthermore, look at the example of the Great Chicago Fire, or the San Francisco Earthquake. These devastating incidents took place before there was any public “safety net.” In SF, there was no state help and certainly no federal help. The people of the surrounding areas gave immediate help of food water and shelter. Then help from the rest of the country began pouring in. The city was rebuilt in short order and began growing faster than before.
In the Chicago Fire, which happened over thirty years earlier, the same circumstances of no outside governmental help were there but the outpouring of help and succor was overwhelming. Chicago even raised the ground level of its downtown (the Loop) about ten feet in the rebuilding process, so as to diminish swampyness and prevent disease. Twenty years later, thistown, which didn’t even exist seven or eight decades before, hosted the 1893 World’s Fair.
Now have a look at how New Orleans fared after Katrina. Most of the Lower ninth Ward is still unrebuilt. The population has dropped precipitously. But what is now flourishing there? Private and Charter schools. Test scores have zoomed. THis is not government’s doing - it is the people. Generally, the government efforts have been botched or have failed outright.
Or look at Ground Zero after 9-11. For a decade all the public entities argued over the site. That after billions of dollars of federal aid. Finally, they started building, and zip! They were done.
Even our most populous places cannot be beaten down if allowed to take care of their own affairs. Subsidiarity does work. An expansive, top-down welfare culture is a demonstration of faith in man, not God. Somehow, when we were free to take care of things ourselves, we did. God gave us the power and He believes in us.

 

[Illmatic15]

Wow, lots of very interesting posts!

Zoltan and jkelly, you both are showing to me more and more the inefficiancy and redundancy of govt intervention. I usually joke around that everything the government touches dies, but these things make it even more of a reality. And I do remember how Ground Zero of 9/11 had been a wasteland for such a long time, but the building of the new WTC seemed to happen rather quickly. I find it so unfortunate how some Catholics have no respect for the ideal of subsidiarity, and instead choose the anti-Christian cult of force and coercion of state intervention. The Pope’s encyclicals have made it clear that the state has the right to interfere at times and that the market cannot be the ultimate savior of the poor, and I agree with that, but I find the actual need for such an exercise of power to be quite rare. Also, complete opposition to social security is considered extreme by the mainstream, but let’s remember that Catholic activists such as Dorothy Day, Hilarie Belloc, and other distributists were opposed to such measures of govt dependency. I find it so hypocritical for those who teach Christian love and peace have little reservations against using violence for their ends without any recluse to the private sphere.
And jkelly, you have a point about how God intended for the Israelites to find prosperity through the economic system he laid down. And also, another thing in Mosaic law is how, concerning the poor, God didn’t say, to fix it, you must tax your neighbor, it said that YOU must take him under your wing and let him work for you until he gets back on his feet. This helps give explanation as to why, for so long, the Israelites never had a centralized state, until the anointing of their first king of course.

GratefulFred, I read the article, and it seems to me to be conforming to the false view that subsidiarity and solidarity oppose each other and balance each other out. Instead, they complement each other. Solidarity, in Catholicism, refers to the unity of humanity in pursuit of the common good, the good of our fellow man, and subsidiarity is stating that this is best done on a smaller basis. And yes, cooperation is needed with government, but in the sense that they coordinate a smaller body’s activities with that another, not to step in on a smaller body’s function. And also, the point of global governance is more of solidarity, and is only something relevant in subsidiarity on a rather rare basis. You seem like you truly do care for your fellow man, but you should give peaceful means and charity a chance before the gloomy intimidation of the state replaces it.

 

[Illmatic15]

I also particularly liked this forum member’s explanation of Catholic anarchism in relation to subsidiarity

In brief, anarchism can be viewed as extreme subsidiarity, where rules are established in the narrowest and most local manner possible. Neighborhood rules are established by neighbors, agreed upon by neighbors, and mutually enforced by neighbors. The broader and higher tiered a society gets, the more that rules become abstract laws removed from their local intent and value. Once you get to higher levels of government you have the absurdity of people in a distant capitol making laws for an arbitrary jurisdiction, and enforcement has minimal actual consent from the governed. Why should the cultural norms of the Pacific Northwest, which has a high tolerance for marijuana use and little danger from allowing it, be dictated by folks in Washington D.C.? The DEA is a government entity that is inherently distant from the people it supposedly serves, and its rules become arbitrary and lack the consent of the people.

Free association implies the acceptance of the rules of the group, and mutual enforcement of the norms. It implies a choice to join, and a choice to accept those who wish to join. Just as I agree to abide by, and enforce, the rules of chess when I play a match, I can do the same with my associates in other endeavors. In doing so I’m accountable to the group I associate with, not any outside, arbitrary organization.

People like Dorothy Day seemed to have a similar view of subsidiarity. Government is most certainly good, but I believe that when it takes the form of the centralized state it becomes evil and enslaving, and 1 Samuel 8 seems to make this clear.

Peace

 

[tafan]

I will join you guys anytime complaining about the US tax code and complaining that the principle of subsidiarity has been completing abandoned my modern governments.
That said, the Church teaches taxes are certainly just in normal times:

From the CCC

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

And this is not some new fangled teaching. Aquinas certainly acknowledged the power of taxation for just causes:
newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article8

Reply to Objection 3. It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing: but if they extort something unduly by means of violence, it is robbery even as burglary is.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I will join you guys anytime complaining about the US tax code and complaining that the principle of subsidiarity has been completing abandoned my modern governments.
That said, the Church teaches taxes are certainly just in normal times:

From the CCC

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Notice the use of the term COMMON GOOD.

If the authority we are supposed to share responsibility with uses our taxes to benefit certain individuals or specific groups then that authority is NOT providing for the common good and has over-stepped its authority and responsibility.

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

I have no problem with that. I would only mention that we Christian “colonists” had a jolly little revolution because a king over taxed us and would not allow us to “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

And this is not some new fangled teaching. Aquinas certainly acknowledged the power of taxation for just causes:
newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article8

Reply to Objection 3. It is no robbery if princes exact from their subjects that which is due to them for the safe-guarding of the common good, even if they use violence in so doing: but if they extort something unduly by means of violence, it is robbery even as burglary is.

I like Aquinas, Notice again the reference to the COMMON GOOD and “extortion” by means of violence.

There are good princes and kings who collect fair taxes and provide for the common good (Everyone) There are good governments whose functions are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. This is the only purpose of a legitimate government. Basically to protect our rights. As long a s a government functions that way it is not robbing us by taking our taxes.