Subsidiarity

[dairygirl4u2c]

Republicans often cite the principle of subsidiarity as a matter of economic policy wherein the local government to the point of no government is the best government to take care of poverty etc. They imply or state that subsidiarity is an automatic win as republicans are more in line with that than democrats are.

Can't some democrats say that the principle of subsidiarity favor them, even if they are not necessarily promoting the local help? By the principle's own standards, if the localest government or lack thereof is not working, you have to move up.

If repubs would be willing to follow the principle and move up when needed, and dems would be willing to stay low when needed, I don't see how it can be cited as a win for either.

If anything, reflecting my liberal tendency, it favors the dems. Look at all the poor, sick etc and look at all the locals doing nothing for whatever reason about it. You might say they never will if you help them. That's a decent argument, but since when do we say "nothing for you, because people might abuse it". That's essentially what you argue. Help people that need it, and the moral choice to take what is not needed is on the people who do that stuff. Don't punish the good because of the few rotten apples out there.


[quote]"Positive subsidiarity", which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle.

The principle of subsidiarity was developed in the encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, as an attempt to articulate a middle course between the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the various forms of totalitarianism, which subordinate the individual to the state, on the other. [/quote]

Edited December 21, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[beatty07]

all good points... and I definitely agree that it isn't an automatic 'win' for Republicans.

In the broadest (therefore least useful) terms, I do think the Republican party has historically been much more in line with this principle. It's no secret that Democrats have presided over most of the inflation of federal government and most of the transfer of power away from local/state govt to the federal level. But Republicans have also done PLENTY of that, especially recently.

In terms of public discourse, the principle is dead. People talk as though federal govt is omnicompetent. Let's say someone like Ronald Reagan wants to cut way back on federal welfare programs. He argues that more local administration of social aid will be more efficient, less wasteful, less corrupt, better targeted, and have better results for the poor. Now this may or may not be the case, but that discussion never happens. He's labelled as "not caring about the poor", "against welfare", end of story.

There's no room in the public discourse to say "'x' is good and should be done but not by the federal government." Which is too bad because the federal government is really, amazingly, astoundingly, mind-bogglingly bad at a great deal of what it does.

um... maybe I should have had my coffee and relaxed a bit before posting.

[Aloysius]

the principal of subsidarity says that as much as possible should be done on the local level. democrats do not 'win' by 'going up' when local government fails at something. you are only supposed to 'go up' when local government [i]does not have the capacity[/i] to do something. local government can't settle disputes between two states, local government can't do any international policy, et cetera.

if one family fails one Christmas to get all the presents under the tree, the local government does not suddenly consider getting Christmas presents under the tree its domain. It remains the family's proper domain. In the same way there are things which are the local government's proper domain. Perhaps at some point in time the local government would have a bad policy on some particular issue. That issue does not automatically become the federal government's proper domain. Perhaps it can temporarily help while something is failing, but it should not take over; it should help just enough for the local government to get back control of whatever is its proper domain.

The democrat's platform is to turn things into the federal government's permanent domain whenever and wherever the local government is failing. That, in my humble opinion, is a direct breach of the principal of subsidarity and therefore directly contrary to the teaching of the Church.

The Republican's official platform/party line/slogan is totally more in line with subsidarity: 100%. That doesn't make it 'always a win' for the republican candidate because everyone that goes to Washington gets currupted and they never cut the federal programs that ought to be cut.

Anyway, in summation, I disagree with dairy's analysis that the democrats correctly 'move up' because most things should never be 'moved up' even if the local government fails at them: they have to be given another chance to get better because it is their job to do; and I certainly agree with beatty07's point that the principal is sadly dead in American politics (though the republicans still pay lip service and sometimes attempt to do some good with it)

All in all it proves the point that Catholics are wrong for being democrat based on economic policies: the democrat's official economic policy flat out contradicts the Church's teaching on how governments should be run. Subsidarity does not say "bring everything up to the federal level when it fails at the local" it says "make the local strong enough to deal with all the things which are within its domain"... and when the federal government just takes charge of such things, the local government gets weaker in things that should be in its domain and the federal government incompetantly does those things which are outside of its domain. lose/lose situation.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1146873' date='Dec 21 2006, 11:00 AM']
Republicans often cite the principle of subsidiarity as a matter of economic policy wherein the local government to the point of no government is the best government to take care of poverty etc. They imply or state that subsidiarity is an automatic win as republicans are more in line with that than democrats are.

Can't some democrats say that the principle of subsidiarity favor them, even if they are not necessarily promoting the local help? By the principle's own standards, if the localest government or lack thereof is not working, you have to move up.

If repubs would be willing to follow the principle and move up when needed, and dems would be willing to stay low when needed, I don't see how it can be cited as a win for either.

If anything, reflecting my liberal tendency, it favors the dems. Look at all the poor, sick etc and look at all the locals doing nothing for whatever reason about it. You might say they never will if you help them. That's a decent argument, but since when do we say "nothing for you, because people might abuse it". That's essentially what you argue. Help people that need it, and the moral choice to take what is not needed is on the people who do that stuff. Don't punish the good because of the few rotten apples out there.
[/quote]
While it is certainly debatable whether Republican politicians have always in practice acted in the best interests of subsidiarity, to imply that the big-government socialism favored by many liberal Democrats is more in line with subsidiarity is flat-out wrong-headed.

Subsidiarity means soing things at the local level whenever possible, not passing the buck to federal government bureaucrats. Today politicians (especially Dems, but Reps are not immune) act as though the solution to every problem is some government program or another. This breeds more dependency on big government, as people look to the federal government to do what they should be doing themselves. Politicians exploit this, and government gets ever-bigger, whether Democrats or Republicans in charge. In fact, domestic spending actually increased more under Bush than under Clinton, yet now liberal Dems are charging that Bush and the Republicans aren't doing enough to help the poor! And so the growth of government perpetuates itself.

If liberals really cared about subsidiarity, maybe they should volunteer more in helping others at the local level, rather than saying "nobody's doing anything" and calling for more tax-and-spend gov't programs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

The Christmas example is poor I think because it has to do with unnecessary things, unlike having inadequate living conditions etc, the basics. Christmas is simply a want, a perk. But I see your point beyong the bad analogy.

Looking at the wikipedia article, I see that it says "capacity". What exactly does capacity mean? It could mean if you don't do it, for whatever reason, you don't have the capacity. Then, it oculd mean if you don't do it, but could do it, you have the capacity. The latter which is your interpretation seems very possible but I don't see it abundantly clear.

Is there any other sources of info that reflect traditional thought on "capacity" that I am missing, or is your ideas on it simply your own interpretations/deductions of previous thought? (though even if the thought to move up is is wrong to traditional thought, that doens't mean it's ultmately wrong)


Also, if conservatives did their part as they say should be done, then there would not be a need for going up. True, liberals could stop whining and do it too, but they may have other ideas for what should be done by charity and government. For me, I think it is misplaced to say charities should pick up the slack that an unfair system creates. So, for the dems, they defer to the government, and if the conservatives don't like that, the balls in their court. The reasons I think it's unfair is somewhat beside my point as to what I'm saying here. but to give a brief idea, I'm not certain that charity is always the preferred method of doing things by subsidiarity principles. eg just ot make a point, If there's a monopoly that is causing others from growing and competing, the solution is to change the system, not help the poor in an unfair system. how i think this example translates into our sociey is more complex, but i'm not sure at this point that I need to elaborate on that.
Charity should only work when it's needed. otherwise it's a joke.

But, assuming you should do charity, Just because those seeking to go up don't do their bit, no one does, and that means the duty should move up, I would think, for the reasons I said in my first post. With charity, it still goes back to the capacity question.+

No one, well not everyone, is saying it should be socialism or capitalism. They are saying capitalism subdued by socialistic thought, that is, subsidiarity thought, that is only doing what's needed that's not done by the lower. That might mean creating a bunch of regulations to minimize abuse, but that's life. And it's not necessarily necessary to go to the federal, you got the on the ground, town, township, county, state before that.

Edited December 22, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Plus, if it's moved up, and the local wants another chance, they don't have to accept the assistance. It goes back to the bad seeds thing, and people not taking what they shouldn't.

[beatty07]

It does seem like there's a place for the 'moving up' concept, or 'positive subsidiarity' as termed earlier. There are situations in which a higher level should take over what a lower level ought to have done. For instance, if the Smithville county gov't began collecting county tax only from non-white people, the State should interfere. I don't expect anyone would argue with that.

[Aloysius]

there is never a case for a permanent move-up of anything which is the local government's proper domain. this means any and all local matters ought to be dealt with

I don't care what wikepedia says: the Catholic principal is that the local government has things which are its proper domain and the federal government should NEVER take such things over. as a matter of determining what things are in which government's domain you say "if it cannot be done at the local level, then it ought to be done at the federal level". this does NOT translate to "if it is not being done correctly at the local level, then it ought to be done at the federal level"

the local government should deal with absolutely every local matter, as well as how one locality deals with another locality. it is only when there is some dispute between two localities that a larger government must arbitrate between them.

there is a case for a temporary use of the larger government to stop injustice being perpetrated by the lower government in local matters. but it is not to be a systematic matter of policy; the larger government does not have the authority to regularly interfere in local matters. at least according to the unadulterated principal of subsidarity.

the federal government should deal with inter-state relations and international relations primarily. there is never a case to move up any local issue to be dealt with by a federal program on a regular basis.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I will grant that that mode of thinking "what cannot be accomplished at a lower" would help some problems I see with my take of the theory. That is, what if things are being run inefficiently, like a business guy who's paying peanuts to someone only because his business is improperly located. If the feds or uppers get involved, it might perpetuate a bad system by subsidies etc. The only way I could resolve the issue with my system is to say, they have to look at the situation and decide whether it's poorly run and deserving of assistance or not, meaning htey have ot let somethings die off.

The wikipedia thing only said "capacity"; it didn't say what it meant. Byteh wiki article, it could go to either theory. I'm curious to see if anyone can produce any documents saying that one of the theories is better than the other. I've looked at a few, but they are all too ambiguous.

Though you do admit intervening sometimes might be okay. So that might mean requiring the locals to do their bit by law, to ensure proximity and efficiency, not necessarily taking over giving benefit etc. Such necessary intervening as Pope Leo the XIII's advocacy of minimum wage, if the local won't do justice. (unless he meant you should freely be just, and the government shouldn't intervene even if unjust)
"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice"

Though if that wasn't clear, the next Pope probaby cleared it up as far as intervention goes for some things:
"Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life."

The question of what capacity is still remains to be seen. Though if a manager has the capacity to pay a decent wage, and you try to argue the government shouldn't intervene and make him pay a decent wage if the manager doesn't, or at least minimum wage, then that's not following the spirit of the later quote. From the later quote you would take capacity to mean what they are actually doing, not what they have the potential for. To say otherwise, to say he has the potential and so we shouldn't intervene, would mean you are contradicting what the later quote says.
I think what capacity is still remains to be seen, but these quotes I think do seem to favor my definition. The minimum wage thging is more of a regulation though, not say, proactive welfare.
Though even the quote doesn't argue for a uniform minimum wage, it only says what is just, whatever that means, which could mean take each job for what it is.

Edited December 22, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

The more I read of the Popes' writings on social stuff, the more I am impressed. Though most of it's too ambiguous. Impressed because they are not hardline either way capitalism/republicanism/libertariansm v. socialism/emocrat/populism.

Populorum Progressio, asserts that free international trade alone is not adequate to correct these disparities and supports the role of international oirganizations in addressing this need. Pope Paul called on rich nations to meet their moral obligation to poor nations, pointing out the relationship between development and peace.
[quote]"Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man's basic human rights."[/quote]

[quote]We can even say that economic growth is dependent on social progress, the goal to which it aspires; and that basic education is the first objective for any nation seeking to develop itself. Lack of education is as serious as lack of food; the illiterate is a starved spirit. When someone learns how to read and write, he is equipped to do a job and to shoulder a profession, to develop selfconfidence and realize that he can progress along with others. As We said in Our message to the UNESCO meeting at Teheran, literacy is the "first and most basic tool for personal enrichment and social integration; and it is society's most valuable tool for furthering development and economic progress." (36)

We also rejoice at the good work accomplished in this field by private initiative, by the public authorities, and by international organizations. These are the primary agents of development, because they enable man to act for himself. [/quote]

It's interesting to note, yet again, it's not about what the developing nations have a capacity for, it's what they are actually doing. If they are doing poorly, help is needed, provided they have the capacity I assume. They are not saying, they have the capacity, so we should just let free competetion reign. This is beyond even what I would expect. I only expect people to get a decent wage for what tehy do. This is aying we as government and private have to actually help get to the point where they can pay wages etc.

Edited December 23, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

yes, the successors of peter have had much wisdom to offer the nations on the issue of social justice in the past century... but everyone refuses to listen. republicans just pay more lip service to the idea, but both follow the modern mistake of controlling things too much at the federal level.

the difference is in intervening to correct the local system vs. taking it over. it should never be 'moved up' on a permanent basis such that the federal government becomes the normal authority on something which ought to be a local matter. but the federal government can intervene to correct injustice.

that's why helping poorer nations is a good thing. it's great for the governments of rich nations to give aid and help to poorer third world nations. but when the richer nations start taking over things... forcing local policy et cetera, then that would be wrong. the united states can give money to poorer nations, even attempt to regulate where that money goes, but it cannot say "we will give you this money if you change your traffic laws so that people have to drive on the right side of the road like us"

okay, haha, so that's an absurd example but I can't think of a serious one off hand... I'm sure there are many examples and I'm sure many injustices are being done on this level throughout the world.

what subsidarity means is giving power to to locals. help and arbitration on occasions by a larger governemnt to correct injustices within localities and between localities is good as long as the normative state continues to allow the locality to have the power to govern itself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I still would like more documentation on what exactly subsidiarity is. But I am content with differing views of what it is.

What is hot stuff's thoughts on this issue? I know he's a notorious Catholic "liberal". hot stuff?