Subsidiarity

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]“It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79).[/quote]

that's the definition of subsidiarity often expounded. literally, if hte locality is able to do X, then it should.

extremists like ron paul, say even the issue of abortion, and i'd assume murder etc, belongs to the local level, ie, they are not and should not be protected by the centralized government (unless it's the government doing the encroaching).

i do know, historically, rapists would get off because the Supreme court said that it was not in the power of the national government to regulate rape as it did, and the state didn't have a law, so that's how that happened.
this isn't just theory etc, it's actually stuff that applies to real life. (prob goes back to slavery too in many ways

now. if we assume that abortion etc should be fixed by the centralized government, doesn't that mean subsidiarity isn't always the right thing to do in such a literal sense?
my hunch is that the popes are not meaning to be so literal. the locality "can" take care of it, then they must be the ones, usually, that does it.

if you start messing with the terminology, skewing it etc (if they don't regulate it, then they 'cant'), then you could start taking that to many other areas as well, and then we'd be forced to see that subsidiarity isn't always the strict rule it's made out to be.

Edited April 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

there's Catholic subsidiarity, and then there's the Constitution of the United States... Ron Paul is a proponent of the Constitution of the United States, which is a document which inherently includes subsidiarity... but Ron Paul doesn't have these positions because of subsidiarity necessarily, he has them because he follows the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no authority given to the Federal Government to do half the things it has done and; therefore, regardless of the good or bad effects some of the Federal Government's actions may have caused, they were caused by a type of imperialism contrary to the dignity of the human person.

Would you support it if an Islamic nation conquered the United States and imposed Shariah Law just because it also outlawed abortion? I should think not. You don't let large powerful far-away governments (and Washington D.C. is pretty far away from most of the country, if not in distance at least in mindset) take power out of the hands of the local governments even if the thing they are taking power for might be an objective good because what will come with it is many many evils.

You have to understand, when we give the federal government the authority to regulate crimes over the authority of the local state, it's not just the crimes that get regulated. It's a loss of freedom and human dignity across the board.

Would you support it if the UN were to step in and nullify the Supereme Court's decision on the rape case? If not, why not? It would accomplish your goal of getting the rape law through, right? But wouldn't it set bad precedent in the balance of power over all subjects? you have to move beyond looking at it as "the Federal Government can solve the problem so it should" and say "the state CAN solve the problem, so it should"... the people involved in that rape case can work to fix the law in their state... their problem is they have a false understanding of the authority structure of our republic: when the Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional what it said was that the Federal Government has no more right to make that law than the United Nations would have to make that law in our land... they're not saying "we don't like that law" or "we don't mind rape so much"... they're saying "it's not within our authority to do anything, and if we took it within our authority, that would be a bad step"

anyway, I think I'm just going to stick with the UN analogy. Any Federal Law which the Federal Government does not have the express authority to make under the Constitution of the United States should be no more binding than a UN resolution, regardless of if I agree with the law or disagree with it and regardless of whether I think good or bad things will come out of it on that particular subject.

and yes, the Federal government ought not have interfered in the slavery issue. every other nation on earth eventually freed their slaves without bloodshed, and the Confederacy would have done so too, it just couldn't afford to economically collapse by shutting everything down all at once... not only would the whites have starved in a terrible economic depression, the slaves would be free just long enough to learn what starvation was.... you can't just turn an economy on a dime like that, it had to be a gradual thing.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1826348' date='Apr 6 2009, 02:52 PM']there's Catholic subsidiarity, and then there's the Constitution of the United States... Ron Paul is a proponent of the Constitution of the United States, which is a document which inherently includes subsidiarity... but Ron Paul doesn't have these positions because of subsidiarity necessarily, he has them because he follows the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no authority given to the Federal Government to do half the things it has done and; therefore, regardless of the good or bad effects some of the Federal Government's actions may have caused, they were caused by a type of imperialism contrary to the dignity of the human person.

Would you support it if an Islamic nation conquered the United States and imposed Shariah Law just because it also outlawed abortion? I should think not. You don't let large powerful far-away governments (and Washington D.C. is pretty far away from most of the country, if not in distance at least in mindset) take power out of the hands of the local governments even if the thing they are taking power for might be an objective good because what will come with it is many many evils.

You have to understand, when we give the federal government the authority to regulate crimes over the authority of the local state, it's not just the crimes that get regulated. It's a loss of freedom and human dignity across the board.

Would you support it if the UN were to step in and nullify the Supereme Court's decision on the rape case? If not, why not? It would accomplish your goal of getting the rape law through, right? But wouldn't it set bad precedent in the balance of power over all subjects? you have to move beyond looking at it as "the Federal Government can solve the problem so it should" and say "the state CAN solve the problem, so it should"... the people involved in that rape case can work to fix the law in their state... their problem is they have a false understanding of the authority structure of our republic: when the Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional what it said was that the Federal Government has no more right to make that law than the United Nations would have to make that law in our land... they're not saying "we don't like that law" or "we don't mind rape so much"... they're saying "it's not within our authority to do anything, and if we took it within our authority, that would be a bad step"

anyway, I think I'm just going to stick with the UN analogy. Any Federal Law which the Federal Government does not have the express authority to make under the Constitution of the United States should be no more binding than a UN resolution, regardless of if I agree with the law or disagree with it and regardless of whether I think good or bad things will come out of it on that particular subject.

and yes, the Federal government ought not have interfered in the slavery issue. every other nation on earth eventually freed their slaves without bloodshed, and the Confederacy would have done so too, it just couldn't afford to economically collapse by shutting everything down all at once... not only would the whites have starved in a terrible economic depression, the slaves would be free just long enough to learn what starvation was.... you can't just turn an economy on a dime like that, it had to be a gradual thing.[/quote]

i was biting my lip when i posted that first post, cause i realized that he had those views cause of the const, not cause of subsidiarity.
it was meant to be more of an analogy -- if you take subsidiarity to teh extreme as that, then you have the issues i posed.

the point about giving them a inch, and them taking a mile, is very very good, and understood. it seems tht's the practical problem with a centralized government, but that's just the way it is -- if sheria law is trying to be forced, we jsut have to stop it.

so no i wouldn't mind if teh UN came and did that, cause it's doing what it has to to make theworld the way it should be, on this issue.
(course, i recogize local level is usually best, and there's something moral about letting them decide some things and many things, but some things are fundamental to all. course, problem is what you said, everyone starts saying everything is fundamental

(as a side note, even a strict understanding of subsidiarity is at odds with hte constitution. cause, if the locality literally 'can't' do X, then the higher up should, but couldn't, because of the strict reading of the constitution.

so do i take it, that you part with most of phatmass that abortion/murder should not be regulated by the feds? liberal state of massachusetts wants abotion at will at any points, and that's fine by your cause of state soveriegnty? (i'm asking per what ought to be, not what is per the constitution etc)
(even if ron paul thinks that cause of the const, btw, about abortion, i still say it's legalism, and not something to be proud of)
do you seriously think that's what the popes would want? (it might be, but i haven't seen it very explicitly other than to read into it by the definition of subsidiarity

Edited April 6, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i was skimming through that quote i gave and saw this.
i should put that in my archive list.
[quote]25. With regard to civil authority, Leo Xlll, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth every effort so that "through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State."[19] Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. "For the nation, as it were, of the rich is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wageworkers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight."[20][/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1826348' date='Apr 6 2009, 02:52 PM']there's Catholic subsidiarity, and then there's the Constitution of the United States... Ron Paul is a proponent of the Constitution of the United States, which is a document which inherently includes subsidiarity... but Ron Paul doesn't have these positions because of subsidiarity necessarily, he has them because he follows the Supreme Law of the Land. There is no authority given to the Federal Government to do half the things it has done and; therefore, regardless of the good or bad effects some of the Federal Government's actions may have caused, they were caused by a type of imperialism contrary to the dignity of the human person.

Would you support it if an Islamic nation conquered the United States and imposed Shariah Law just because it also outlawed abortion? I should think not. You don't let large powerful far-away governments (and Washington D.C. is pretty far away from most of the country, if not in distance at least in mindset) take power out of the hands of the local governments even if the thing they are taking power for might be an objective good because what will come with it is many many evils.

You have to understand, when we give the federal government the authority to regulate crimes over the authority of the local state, it's not just the crimes that get regulated. It's a loss of freedom and human dignity across the board.

Would you support it if the UN were to step in and nullify the Supereme Court's decision on the rape case? If not, why not? It would accomplish your goal of getting the rape law through, right? But wouldn't it set bad precedent in the balance of power over all subjects? you have to move beyond looking at it as "the Federal Government can solve the problem so it should" and say "the state CAN solve the problem, so it should"... the people involved in that rape case can work to fix the law in their state... their problem is they have a false understanding of the authority structure of our republic: when the Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional what it said was that the Federal Government has no more right to make that law than the United Nations would have to make that law in our land... they're not saying "we don't like that law" or "we don't mind rape so much"... they're saying "it's not within our authority to do anything, and if we took it within our authority, that would be a bad step"

anyway, I think I'm just going to stick with the UN analogy. Any Federal Law which the Federal Government does not have the express authority to make under the Constitution of the United States should be no more binding than a UN resolution, regardless of if I agree with the law or disagree with it and regardless of whether I think good or bad things will come out of it on that particular subject.

and yes, the Federal government ought not have interfered in the slavery issue. every other nation on earth eventually freed their slaves without bloodshed, and the Confederacy would have done so too, it just couldn't afford to economically collapse by shutting everything down all at once... not only would the whites have starved in a terrible economic depression, the slaves would be free just long enough to learn what starvation was.... you can't just turn an economy on a dime like that, it had to be a gradual thing.[/quote]
Not sure where you stand on this, so bear with me . . .

Would you oppose the passing of the Human Life Amendment, or similar legislation protecting the life of the unborn child at the federal level?

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, do you think the state should have complete control in doing the following hypotheticals:

allowing murder, banning procreation, banning marriages, controling how ya raise your kids etc

just curious how far this is suppose to go
also, the bill of rights didn't originally apply to the states, until later. without that addition, im not sure offhand how you'd regulate the state. (im pretty sure the feds could be regulated more, by the 9th amendment, (and other considerations), even before 'fundamental rights' of the 14th came)

so for that matter do you think searation fo chruch and state, freedom of speech, etc shouldn't apply to the states?

again, all asking per what ought to be, not what necessarily is bc of the constitution

Edited April 7, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

I think there should be a Constitutional Amendment to illegalize abortion, given the way the United States Constitution is operated. According to the current law of the land, it should be the states which decide the issue. Of course, since there are federal anti-murder laws which are not objected to by anyone, I also think there should be federal anti-abortion laws as well; but it is clear to me that to respect the way our country's authority structure is set up, the correct course of action according to the law would be a Constitutional Amendment. I am, in general, very concerned about anything (even if I agree with it) being done by the Federal Government which it does not have the Constitutional mandate to do, as it is a type of unjust imperialism (not to say imperialism cannot be just, only that imperialism is unjust if a common agreement of union under a government is agreed to by all member states on certain conditions which are then broken to expand the power over those states, it's like adding things onto a contract after it's signed; if there's a voluntary empire of states (which the US is analogous to if one considers that each of the 50 states is an individual state and in a different area might even be its own country) then the agreement by which that empire was put into place must be abided by by the imperial authority)

the 14th amendment is far too ambiguous and often misapplied, IMO, but to a certain very limited degree (such as applying the bill of rights to individuals strictly) it is good, and it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

when I say that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do something, I am not saying that the state should be able to do it: only that the Federal Government shouldn't be allowed to stop them from doing it.

oh, and I agree with Leo XIII's ideas about government (I'm not a libertarian, I'm too distributist for that, I just tend to side with them in the context of American politics)... in fact, Leo XIII is pretty much my absolute favorite pope. He beats JPII for me by a mile (Benedict XVI beats out JPII for me by ten feet, for comparison's sake). but his ideas are meant to be applied at local levels heavily.

I think it's important to note the way in which I see the Federal Government... I [i]almost[/i] view it as an INTERNATIONAL body, that's how much I value states' rights. for all practical purposes, to me the Federal Government presides over an empire of 50 individual states who all voluntarily agree to be parts of the empire so long as the imperial authority is bound to ONLY do what the Constitution says.

and I think you're crazy to accept the idea of the UN stepping into our laws, EVEN if their stepping in would be a good thing. They don't have the authority to do it. yes, something bad might be going on somewhere in the world, but the people who should stop that something bad are the people with authority to do so. It's almost like vigilantism in reverse... in vigilantism, individuals take authority upon themselves to do something they do not have the authority to do; in the Federal government's case, it is a similar issue: both are taking authority that they do not have. the Federal government is a VIGILANTE when it operates outside of the clear restrictions of the United States Constitution.

now, a vigilante can have many positive results... and a vigilante even may never ever do anything wrong and might only ever do good things for people... but vigilantism is still wrong.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, if the UN just came in without our permission, i would disagree with that, usually.
so, if you apply that analogy to your strict ideas about states, compared to an international standard, and then compare that to the UN hypo, in that case i wouldn't disagree.
if it was something very grave though, i wouldn't be opposed to the UN forcibly doing it. rape isn't grave enough, IMHO, usually.
but if it was the UN coming in to do it with permission based on a contractual power structure, i would'nt disagree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it does seem like your flirting with proabortionist mentality though.
ie, 'let the person closest to the issue decide. it doesn't matter if the abortion occurs, as long as we respect their soverignty which is more important.'

like, would you support the UN stopping abortions? if ya said no, it's similar to the above mindset.

i do see the differences. it's just an analogy.


on that note, i was thinking the other day, just a random thought. those few people who say 'it's a person but it does't matter cause it's their body so their choice and they didn't choose to get pregnant', would be like saying, 'it's my labor, i didn't choose to get her pregnant or for her ot have the baby. i'm not going ot pay for it in child support. or whatever'
it's pretty flaky
but anyways

[Aloysius]

this is not a pro-abortionist mentality. for one, I do think abortion should be illegalized federally so long as murder is illegalized federally in order to be consistent; however, according to the system of government we have, the ideal would be that both murder and abortion were legislated against by the states and the policing and prosecuting against them should be decided by the states. that is to say: all the states ought to illegalize them both.

I do not think the UN should illegalize abortion or murder or anything else in the US (absurd anyway since the UN is so pro-abortion, but for the sake of the argument). this is not being pro abortion, because on the same vein, one could accuse those who are against vigilante attacks upon abortion doctors to stop abortion of being pro-abortion. they are not; they merely do not recognize the authority of the vigilante to do what he is doing, even if they think abortion should be stopped. one cannot overcome evil with other evils, be it individualist vigilantism or globalist vigilantism.

it all comes down to recognizing who has the authority to fight that evil. I recognize the evil, obviously, however, I do not think that just any individual has the authority or power to stop that evil by any means they deem fit; nor do I think that just any organization or government has the authority to stop that evil by any means they deem fit.

if you say that the federal government has the authority to fight that evil even though its explicit contract with the states says it can do NOTHING that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state it can do, then you might as well say that John Q. Public has the authority to fight that evil with his AK 47 and his rudimentary knowledge of how to build pipe bombs even though his explicit contract with the governments under which he lives say that he must abide by the law and utilize the legal process to attempt to end things he deems to be evil.

now, I'll tell you what: I have a soft spot in my heart for the loan individualist vigilante... and you seem to have a soft spot for the large governmental vigilante... and both of those soft spots are inspired by a hatred of the evil. but I cannot claim that those who do not sympathize with individualist vigilantes who attempt to blow up abortion clinics are not anti-abortion; nor can anyone claim that those who do not sympathize with large overbearing governmental vigilantes stepping outside their authority to stop abortion are not anti-abortion.

now, as I said before, not all imperialism is necessarily evil. the Federal Government's subversive imperialism is evil; but some power which was motivated by the desire to end abortion who made an imperial conquest of the United States of America might be justified in doing so. but on the same token, on the flip side and back to the individualist vigilantes, some rag-tag paramilitary militia group who overthrew the US government in order to illegalize abortion might also be justified. there are no more and no less qualifications for either such group for what would make their cause justified.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1827404' date='Apr 7 2009, 12:06 PM']in fact, Leo XIII is pretty much my absolute favorite pope. He beats JPII for me by a mile (Benedict XVI beats out JPII for me by ten feet, for comparison's sake). but his ideas are meant to be applied at local levels heavily.[/quote]

He is your favourite pope although you are, if I remember right, a monarchist?

[Aloysius]

"Of the various forms of government the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only--and nature itself requires--that they should be constituted without involving wrong to anyone, and especially without violating the rights of the Church" -Pope Leo XIII

I am generally in favor of having a good monarchy, yes.

[Innocent]

Oh, okay. I understand now. He supported the republic in France because he thought it was the best practical solution, though he wouldn't have been against a monarchy if it were practicable. Is that correct?


P.S. Apologies to dairygirl4u2c for this hijack. Won't happen again.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Innocent

[Aloysius]

his responses to the issues of the time were good, IMO. I do not think he would have been against monarchies in principal, but he thought of the future of the Church and knew that she could not survive in a world where she simply refused to recognize the authority of any of the governments (a direction that the Church seemed to be headed in before him, since the world's governments were changing so much), so he sought a way to call upon those governments to exercise just authority. the principal of the above quote I agree with very much; but I personally believe a Catholic state would best be run by a just Catholic monarch and that there inherent difficulties in democracies and republics.

think of France as the eldest daughter of the Church, and the pope is representing her father... she just pretty much wrecked the car the Church bought for her at this time, but then she went out and got a job so she could afford to buy her own dinky little used car rust bucket... and Leo XIII praised her for taking up that responsibility. that's the way I look at that whole situation, anyhow.

it is his social teaching which I most like him for... Rerum Novarum is actually quite radical if read for what it is (rather than reading into it one's modern social justice theory) and I am a fan of radical Catholic economics when they're truly Catholic.