What Happened to Subsidiarity?

[LCMS_No_More]

I’m always shocked when populist myth’s continue to propogate without a thread of concrete historical fact.

Since “unbridled capitalism” has never been practiced on a large scale, your thesis is just a theory. However, frontier America it was tried practiced on a smaller scale without a single monopoly developing. The invasion of the fronteir west of monopolies and large corporate cattle companies was done by the imposition of governmental powers onto the people. Certainly not consistent w/ unbridled capitalism.

Ever hear of the Gilded Age?

And regardless of what your political ideology is, the Church condemns unbridled capitalism alongside socialism.

No it doesn’t. Subsidiarity is a Truth. It states that there are certain rights and obligations that lie exclusively with the individual/family that can not be infringed upon by any authority except natural law.

As said by Pius XI stated in Quadragesimo Anno:
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. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”[399].

This speaks directly against the basic tenet of Socialism that one is to give to the state to their ability and recieve according to their need.

The principle of subsidiarity is silent to the morality of capitalism as a means of economic order and distribution of goods. However, basic tenets of Catholic Social Teaching is not silent on the merits of accummulating wealth and goods and consuming without regard to others. CST speaks directly to the obligation of individuals to act charitably toward others. It also allows the prudential judgment of the people to organize for the assistance of the less fortunate, including the limited use of taxation and legislation to effect justice. See what I underlined above. The debate comes in when the prudential judgment of some believe a social activity infringes on the principle of subsidiarity.

When I say it works both ways, I am saying that one’s opposition to big government on the basis of subsidiarity must be balanced by an opposition to massive corporations on the same basis. I have no problem with small businesses or even alliances of small businesses. I have a major problem with huge corporations that have enough power to rival that of the people…which today, they absolutely do.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From LCMSNoMore: Ever hear of the Gilded Age?

Yes I have. And, the abuses are a function of corruption of government by the rich. This is not a reflection on the marketplace. It was a failure in both the rich to use their gifts in stewardship and mostly a failure of civil authorities to exercise their God-given obligation to act for the benefit of the governed.

From LCMSNoMore: And regardless of what your political ideology is, the Church condemns unbridled capitalism alongside socialism.

Can you site this condemnation as an infallible Teaching vs. a moral teaching (small m and small t) of leaders communicating their prudential judgment. I hope you aren’t going to reference CC2424 as it speaks to the conduct of individuals in the context of capitalism. Catholic Social Teaching makes it quite clear that all individuals are never to act immorally and without a spirit of stewardship. More importantly and relevant is the practical fact that any Social Contract must be moral for it to be acceptable to the Church and the Social Contract supercedes the distribution and creation of goods and services. Thus, the Social Contract by its very creation places limits on the practices of this distribution and creation of goods, including capitalistic activity. Once we have a Social Contract, there is no unbridled capitalism as defined by those who criticize capitalism.

From LCMSNoMore: When I say it works both ways, I am saying that one’s opposition to big government on the basis of subsidiarity must be balanced by an opposition to massive corporations on the same basis. I have no problem with small businesses or even alliances of small businesses. I have a major problem with huge corporations that have enough power to rival that of the people…which today, they absolutely do.

I disagree. There is nothing inherently harmful in massive corporations. Abuse is result of governmental favor. Without the free consent of the consumer to use their goods and services, they have no power unless granted preferential monopoly power by the state.

 

[markomalley]

Mom24boys (what a handfull they must be! ), I am responding to your post, but really this question is for everyone. I am trying to get a handle on subsidiarity, what are some examples of federal programs which could be better run by state or local governments?

In answer to this question, I would say that you think too narrowly when you think about simply governments doing this…
…the question should be what level of society should do something?

That, of course, begs the question, what is the role of government vice the role of society (individuals, families, or groups who band together to do a function without compulsion)?

As to your question, I can think of a number of areas where the Federal government has usurped the authority of the states…or of the local entities.

• social assistance programs. What percentage of beneficiaries have actually benefited from the social assistance programs put in place by the Federal government (I define benefit as being able to eventually get off from them because they are not needed), such as (particularly) those brought on by the Great Society? (On the contrary, I would submit that the Great Society programs had as much an influence on the destruction of the family unit as part of the urban poor as any other factor that you could name)

– Caveat: before somebody pounces, the tax structure could be put in place to encourage individuals to contribute to the common good. And have that social assistance be provided by various societies vice by the government…at any level. I am not saying that assistance does not need to be provided. I simply question the efficacy of providing it by the government, particularly by the Federal government.

• Medicare. See the caveat above. In my opinion, the advent of medicare has done more to destroy the health system in this country as anything you could mention. Why?? Because of the (name removed by moderator)ersonal nature of it and because it is so HUGE that it encourages fraud…
• Foreign humanitarian aid. See the caveat above. Not that aid and assistance do not need to be provided to other countries…but why is the government involved? From the times that I have spent in third world countries that are recipients of the aid, I see a disproportionate amount of assistance ending up in the hands (or in the pockets) of the national leaders of the recipient countries vice in the hands of the people.
• Promotion of the arts…through funding of various programs (NEA, NEH, CPB, etc.) Show me chapter and verse where the government is supposed to do that??? What happens, a certain political agenda is pushed at us from multiple angles. When was the last government grant given for a piece of sacred art? Yet, throughout history, the sacred was one of the fundamental subjects of the arts. But not when government funds it.

and so on and so forth. I don’t want to write a book, so I’ll stop.

The point is that most of these functions, using the principle of subsidarity, would be done better, more efficiently, with maintaining and encouraging the dignity of the human person, and with an eye to the common good by preferably the state governments…or even better, by people.

The Federal government could use the tax policy to encourage this behavior (for example, provide an ‘above the line’ deduction for charitable work (up to a certain, reasonable percentage)…and allow that deduction on the short form as well as the long form). Even people with the bleakest of hearts could see the benefit of making above-the-line donations for charitable purposes.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yes I have. And, the abuses are a function of corruption of government by the rich. This is not a reflection on the marketplace. It was a failure in both the rich to use their gifts in stewardship and mostly a failure of civil authorities to exercise their God-given obligation to act for the benefit of the governed.

Ah! In other words, the corporations and the rich were able to do whatever they wanted without any interference because they had the government under their sway. That sounds like the end result of unbridled capitalism. We’re on that road again…today.

Can you site this condemnation as an infallible Teaching vs. a moral teaching (small m and small t) of leaders communicating their prudential judgment.

Ah, the ol’ prudential judgement canard. When invoked, it usually means we can ignore it if it’s inconvenient.

I hope you aren’t going to reference CC2424 as it speaks to the conduct of individuals in the context of capitalism.

Actually, 2425.

Catholic Social Teaching makes it quite clear that all individuals are never to act immorally and without a spirit of stewardship. More importantly and relevant is the practical fact that any Social Contract must be moral for it to be acceptable to the Church and the Social Contract supercedes the distribution and creation of goods and services. Thus, the Social Contract by its very creation places limits on the practices of this distribution and creation of goods, including capitalistic activity. Once we have a Social Contract, there is no unbridled capitalism as defined by those who criticize capitalism.

In our system of government, we individuals have the agency of the government to act on our behalf. That’s why we have the responsibility to vote and ensure that people who get into office will abide by the teachings of the Church…ALL of them.

I disagree. There is nothing inherently harmful in massive corporations.

Just as there is nothing inherently harmful in massive government.

But we must always be careful about how much power ANY secular entity has. The government acts as the agent of the people and must have more power than the corporations it charters. I have no problem with people having businesses and the like. I do, however, believe they should be limited.

Abuse is result of governmental favor.

Yeah, tell me about it. Halliburton and Blackwater USA come to mind

Without the free consent of the consumer to use their goods and services, they have no power unless granted preferential monopoly power by the state.

Actually, there are predatory corporations who do create monopoly power by destroying all competition. That’s why we have a law called the Sherman Antitrust Act. It’s not been enforced over the past eight years because of the amoral ideology of those in charge of the Executive branch.

That’s a big part of the reason why I don’t buy Windows based computers.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From LCMSNoMore: Ah! In other words, the corporations and the rich were able to do whatever they wanted without any interference because they had the government under their sway. That sounds like the end result of unbridled capitalism. We’re on that road again…today.

As a general rule, I believe that minimal support (vs. the abuses of the Guilded Age) and regulation serves the people best. A difference of opinion w/ you I know. I respect your perogative to hold this position and defend it.

From LCMSNoMore: Ah, the ol’ prudential judgement canard. When invoked, it usually means we can ignore it if it’s inconvenient.

This is not fair nor consistent w/ the respect the Church gives to prudential judgment.

From LCMSNoMore: In our system of government, we individuals have the agency of the government to act on our behalf. That’s why we have the responsibility to vote and ensure that people who get into office will abide by the teachings of the Church…ALL of them.

I agree. We just disagree on when it is appropriate for the state to use force to get certain results.

From LCMSNoMore: Just as there is nothing inherently harmful in massive government.
But we must always be careful about how much power ANY secular entity has. The government acts as the agent of the people and must have more power than the corporations it charters. I have no problem with people having businesses and the like. I do, however, believe they should be limited.

Except for the last sentence, I agree. It is part and parcel of the Social Contract (in the US embodied by the Constitution). I just see the capacity of large government to do irreparable harm greater than anything a corporation can do. We probably see it differently. Another example of faithful Catholics exercising their prudential judgment.

From LCMSNoMore: Yeah, tell me about it. Halliburton and Blackwater USA come to mind

I concede there has been gross mismanagement. Have you ever read about what happened w/ the Marshall Plan? Just an example of the government trying to do what it isn’t naturally good at.

From LCMSNoMore: Actually, there are predatory corporations who do create monopoly power by destroying all competition. That’s why we have a law called the Sherman Antitrust Act. It’s not been enforced over the past eight years because of the amoral ideology of those in charge of the Executive branch.

Can you name a single monopoly that has developed over the past 8 years? I do know that the percentage of the Gross National Product and share of the capitalization of public companies of the Fortune 500 has is shrinking and has been for decades. Despite any efforts to be predatory, the market is greatly hindering them.

From LCMSNoMore: That’s a big part of the reason why I don’t buy Windows based computers.

I’m with you there.