Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
The rule of subsidiarity has two main precepts, which are:
Subsidarity says that all political authority should be vested in the most local jurisdiction possible. Problems affecting only a family should be handled by that family, town problems should be handled by that town, county problems by that county, etc., and problems that can be handled by any part of the private sector should not be given over to any level of government at all. As applied in America since her founding, there is and must always be some private sphere of personal activity that is completely beyond the reach of government.
Those granted the most authority over any aspect of your life should be required to physically face you, eye to eye, on a regular basis, whether that be in your home, your town hall, your county seat or whatever. No one who can change what goes on in your neighborhood should be alien to your neighborhood.
Under Socialism, the rule of subsidiarity is denied, because a centrally controlled economy requires the top level of government to be in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life. Low level and local matters are handled, in accordance with central planning, by various bureaucrats or underlings in the vast bureaucratic organization absolutely required of Socialism. Top government determines and directs, at the individual citizen level, such matters as health, education, employment, career, private business, wages, investment, property, wealth, and even the simplest of human rights.
Subsidiarity operates best in a Democracy, most especially in a Republic like the USA, where Democracy itself is Constitutionally limited in order that government role and government power may be even more limited. The opposing position in the culture war – Socialism – has the top level of government in charge of all aspect of economic, political and social life, violating the rule. Under full Subsidiarity, in the best scenario, the individual citizen assumes primary responsibility for such matters health, education, employment, career, private business, wages, investment, property, wealth and so forth. Some human rights are spelled out in law, others are assumed in force, and, by default, civil law favors the citizen when any human right is questioned.
Under the proper application of the rule of Subsidiarity, the limited balance of power that is shared between citizen and government favors the citizen. As Subsidiarity is weakened, power automatically migrates from the citizen to the government. As Susidiarity is strengthened, power automatically migrates from the government to the citizen.
The danger, therefore, that Socialism poses to man is that Socialism seeks to centrally plan and control the entire economy. When a man is economically controlled, he is totally controlled. The only way to control anyone economically is to control him politically as well. When someone is completely economically dependant on government, he has, almost definitively, lost all individual citizen rights, all civil rights and all human rights. While Capitalism describes only an economic philosophy, which may only operate among free men in a free market place, Socialism represents both an economic and a political philosophy, because it cannot control an economy without also controlling the citizens who make it work. Under Socialism there is no strictly private sphere of personal activity that is beyond the reach of government.Pure Democracy page:
There can be no compromise; at least not indefinitely.
Noted economists such as Von Mises and Von Hayek have insisted that even minor government tinkering, let alone interference or control, of the free market or any of its parts prods Capitalism toward failure. (See the Social Democracy link.) The more Capitalism fails, the more government intervention is applied, and the more government intervention is applied, the more Capitalism will fail. The inevitable end of the spiral is Socialism.
Many today believe, in their innocent naiveté, that so-called European Socialism exemplified by current day France might be a preferable alternative to both American Capitalism and to flat out Socialism; however, none of the example European Socialist countries are finished with the process of being totally Socialized yet. They are merely farther into the inevitable spiral than America is. Their market is less free, their citizens are less economically free, and their downward spiral continues unabated. They will all end up Socialist in the end, if they do not take action to reverse the trend. The farther it goes, the harder it will be to stop. Visit the Marxism page to see where all this economic and social interference came from.
For many today, Keynesianism is seen as an alternative to completely open and free markets; however, the Keynesian economic approach is characterized by government intervention in the free market economy, a violation of the rule of Subsidiarity. This is not only a violation of the notion that there ought to be a sphere of private activity beyond the reach of government, but it plays right into the economic spiral addressed above, which ultimately ends up in Socialism. Keynes’ theory is thus fatally flawed. It is merely another hopefully non-violent, non-revolutionary path to the same place, whether that is what Keynes originally intended or not.
Marxism opposes family, religion, and even any separate, unique authority located at lower levels of government. Marxism opposes any source of allegiance, discipleship or popular favor that might compete in any way with the sole authority of the Party, which is to say, the sole authority of the dictator. Marxism works to suppress if not eliminate the family and organized religion, and the traditions, individual morality and cultural ethos associated with them.
For an example of the “ideal” situation under which Socialism rules and the rule of Subsidiarity is and must be absolutely denied, see the brief Pure Socialism definition page.
For an example of the “ideal” situation exemplified by the American Republic as originally founded, and in which the rule of Subsidiarity is and must be absolutely required, see the brief Pure Democracy definition page.
Obviously, we very strongly support the rule of Subsidiarity.
Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" the mouse over a link, without clicking, to just to see the related Acronym appear.)
Return to Latest News page
Return to HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Added link into Sociological Definition Pages right-column link set.
Date: Mon Sep 29 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
Date: Mon Apr 13 06:19:58 2015
From: the plummer
Comment: Hello again Vic,
Here I am again bothering you. I shall express again that you have a fantastic grasp of the world around you, the problems that Westernization causes, and a solution that would solve the problems caused.
It's very refreshing to find another willing to offer real solutions, instead of just complaining. You are a problem solver, as am I. I've been reading many of your articles and wanted to present to you my ideas concerning how the Federal Government should be run, and every subsequent lower government.
You and I are in complete agreement that the Federal Government should have absolutely NO authority in matters that are not specifically articulated in the U.S. Constitution. Every subsequent government, from the individual states all the way down to your local subdivision road agreements, must be handled in a subsidiarity fashion.
I have been heavily influenced by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (Converted from protestantism) four years ago, by an economist named Warren Mosler http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf , Maj, General Smedly Butler http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html , G. Edward Griffin http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm , as well as Michael Voris ChurchMilitant.TV ...
It's refreshing to find another man that has come to understand the world in such a fashion that I have recently discovered. I am totally perplexed that I cannot seem to discuss what I've discovered with most folks. They either don't want to discuss the issues, or are too lazy to implement critical thinking.
You are correct that our school system is just a Marxist indoctrination propaganda machine, teaching children WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think.
I'd love to communicate with you in the future, and maybe develop ideas on how to spread the messages of TRUTH to the masses, for I feel that mainstream media machine will never accurately report the facts that we, separately have discovered.
Like you've said, Glenn Beck scratches around the edges, and I believe that he would be a great place to start, I fear that his faith, which is in direct conflict with our faith, may prevent him from seeing the unvarnished TRUTH.
If you have a private way for me to share my personal email with you, we can share ideas, though personally I believe you would be sharing much more with me, than I with you.
Good day, and God Bless.
Date: Mon Apr 13 2015
From: Vic Biorseth
Thank you for your kind words. I went to your supplied links, and the ones pertaining to making war gave me a little pause. It would be nice, but impractical and dangerous in the extreme, to write off "war" and try hard to never engage in it. But the problem with that idea is this:
Evil exists. And he reigns here in The World.
See the Necessity of War Pages. Note well that if it hadn't been for the Crusades, we would now all be either dead, or in blind submission to Islam. And that is what is coming at us again. (See the Islam Pages.) But Islam is not the only physical threat from within and from without cultures; see the Marxism Pages.
Profit and greed and power are not the sole reasons for war; they may contribute, or they may come into being in times of war, but never forget that evil exists, and it intends to dominate, by force if necessary. Through internal revolution, or through external war; one way or another.
What is going on in the Ukraine is not about acquisition of oil or wealth, but is yet another among the many historical examples of the advance of rule by military conquest. It is being advanced by an evil ideology, probably (but not necessarily) being exploited by a dictatorial mind bent on creating or expanding his dictatorship.
What is going on in the Middle East, including the ongoing holocaust of Christians, has nothing to do with the acquisition of oil, money or riches, but is yet another among the many historical examples of the advance of rule by military conquest. It is being advanced by an evil ideology, probably (but not necessarily) being exploited by a dictatorial mind bent on creating or expanding his dictatorship.
The question we must wrestle with is where to confront and engage evil to stop it's advance. Wherever it is crushing good? Strategic places where it is gaining ground? Here in America, and only here? In your house, and only in your house? In your soul, and only in your soul?
We must stand somewhere.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to die than to live as slaves. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” —Thomas Jefferson
Re your invitation to further private discussions - while I am flattered by the request, I had to give that stuff up earlier in the history of this website. It used to have two ways of commenting, private and public. And everybody took the private option over the public. It became quite impossible to keep up with all the individual private conversations via private email.
So, I modified the website to have this comment section at the bottom of each webpage, so that everyone could contribute to that particular subject, and I would no longer be engaged in multiple conversations on the exact same topic with twenty-some people, and fifty or more other times I have to repeat myself twenty-some times a week, or a day. I'm getting too old to keep that many conversations going all at the same time without starting to blither. I can do that anyway.
Having eliminated the private option, the best I can recommend if you have something to contribute, is to go to Submit an Article and create a new webpage to be listed among the User Articles you see in the right column of this and every webpage in this site. There will be a comment section attached to it, where you, I and anyone else is free to dialogue.
Another thing to note is that I am still working full time, and this is only a spare time operation. So, I can only update this site mornings before I go to work, and evenings when I am home, after dinner, if I'm not to tired or otherwise engaged. So, patience is required to see any updates and responses.
Thank you again for the interest and the kind words.
Date: Mon Apr 13 19:54:48 2015
From: The Plummer
I agree with you about JUST reasons for war. However, I have not seen one instance in recent American history that war was declared for reasons other than oligarchical/ military industry complex, for profit, and I mean massive profit.
Why did we not invade Ethiopia, those people are/were starving at the hands of a tyrannical government. That's just one example.
I fully supported our preemptive attack on Saddam Hussein, due to the evil mans attempt at genocide of his own curdish countrymen. But that's not the reason we attacked. We wanted access to the oil. Many middle and lower income men died for oil. Then what do we do, we walk out of the region, without actually putting out the fire, only to let it flare up again.
The ones who profit from war have discovered that actually winning a war, is to solve a problem, and there is no profit from peace, so they constantly ebb and flow, battle lines constantly changing. They are simply trading one "enemy of my enemy is now my friend". No, I believe in a strong military, but two tiered. One that is compulsory, if need be, that is only interested in protecting our borders from attack and invasion. They should be on the southern border protecting us from the current invasion, that Obama and his ilk are promoting.
The other should be a purely voluntary army, and each individual soldier should be presented with the facts as to why war is necessary, and if a worthy enough cause, he shall fight. No more war for profit of a few oligarchs that are funding both sides.
I'm obviously not as good at explaining myself as you are, I hope you can catch my drift
Have a blessed day, my new friend.
Date: Tue Apr 14 2015
From: Vic Biorseth
If we went to war in the Middle East for oil, then, where is it? Why didn't we get any of it?
I think you've been at least partially led astray in your thinking about war, and particularly America's participation in wars. First, to clarify terminology and make sure we're talking about the same things: I prefer the term Crony Capitalism to the term Oligarchy, the term most commonly used these days to describe the Russian variant.
Crony Capitalists, and the politicians or dictators they are colluding with, can form a "shadow government" that is running parts or most of the government behind the scenes, out of view of the public. If and when this shadow government goes public, it takes the form of Fascism or National Socialism, which are the "Right Wing" of Marxism, opposing the "Left Wing" of Marxism, which is Communism. Thus, the Crony Capitalists will pretend to be anti-Capitalist, but the Capital (private property) they will oppose will be the Capital of their business competition; not their own Capital. Espousing a certain limited or restricted Capitalism for me, but not for thee. That's the Left and the Right within Marxism.
In America, of course, the Left represents all of Marxism, in all forms and variants, and the Right represents direct opposition to all forms of Marxism, and that direct opposition is best exemplified by the American Constitution itself.
The danger to the American Constitution posed by Crony Capitalism, at least originally, came less from ideological Marxists than from corrupt bankers and businessmen seeking unfair advantage in the open competition of the free market. (Restricting the free market kills true Capitalism, which is, definitively, a free market). They sought political partnership to gain illegal market advantage over competition. It is not clear today whether Marxist ideology or pure greed predominates in American Crony Capitalist motivation.
Who they collude with, mainly, are our Political Parties. The Marxocrat Party today, despite all public denials, is the Party of the Rich, and the Super Rich. Men like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who take turns being the richest men in America, and companies like Google and Apple, who take turns being the most profitable companies in America, practically own the Marxocrat Party and/or it's most notable operatives, leaders, candidates and representatives. The Marxocrat and Republicrat Parties themselves have formed a "shadow government" operating completely outside the constraints and limitations of the Constitution.
All that being said, the infamous "Military Industrial Complex" is a term seized on by American Marxists and turned into a "Straw Villain" target for recruitment of Pacifists as another branch of Marxism's Useful Idiots. The origination of the term, and it's immediate confiscation and exploitation by Marxists, was described in the SLIMC1 treatment.
The false view of an American industry based on war for profit has been inculcated into millions of American minds through Marxified education, news reporting and commentary, over multiple generations. It is indoctrination and propaganda. See Professor Brom's Marxist Fundamentals for the root of this falsehood. This is the root of the American Pacifism Movement, as illustrated in the treatment of Dorothy Day.
I cannot say with any certainty that no one in all of our defense industry is or was a Crony Capitalist; but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the whole Military Industrial Complex scenario was painted with a Marxist brush. Note well that the Pacifists always, always, want to disarm us, but not the Russians or the Chinese. We are the bad guys, they are the good guys.
But it is the opposite. Evil exists, and they are on the wrong side of good and evil. We are the good guys; or, at least, we used to be the good guys.
PS: The Marxocrat Party, with or without full knowledge of their Crony Capitalist funders, currently espouses Marxism-Leninism almost exactly as warned of by Professor Brom, and the Republicrat Party, at the very least, is not opposing it. I believe they are in on it. Whether that be true or not, both Political Parties have shown, by their actions and inactions, that they themselves pose a very serious internal threat to the American Constitution and to the very idea of America.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and nothing else.
Sociological Definition Pages
Definitions of all the "isms" with a lot of consensus of thinking behind them, which makes them popular opinions or ideas seeking political favor.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers. The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
Definition of Freudianism: The psychoanalytical thought and practice of Freud, Jung and Kinsey. This definition of Freudianism addresses Sigmund Freud's turn of psychological focus from cognition and intellect to the unconscious & subconscious mind.
The definition of Darwinism in a nutshell. In the definition of Darwinism we find the foundational priciples upon which the quest for the atheist holy grail: the purely material origin of life itself.
Definition of Islam: Ideology of Military Conquest Masquerading as a Religion. The Definition of Islam describes the “Convert, Submit or Die” War Strategy of Mohammed.
The term Marxist defined: Marxism today has overtaken many earlier terms. Re the term Marxist defined in contemporary usage. The term Liberal doesn’t mean what it used to mean either.
Definition of Conservatism: "That government is best that governs the least." A definition of conservatism must recognize that, politically speaking, the terms Liberal and Conservative have traded places.
Definition of Libertarian : A Pro-Constitutional Practical Atheist. The definition of Libertarian describes a religiously-cleansed conservatism defending core American political values while denying moral absolutes.
Definition of Capitalism: Economic Organization based on Private Property. Any true definition of Capitalism must state that it is purely an Economic system, not a Government system, and it works most efficiently and profitably under Representative Government.
Our argument supporting the Rule of Subsidiarity, practicality and common sense. The moral and organizational Rule of Subsidiarity is crucial to the rights of man and essential for freedom.
Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society. The Marxian definition of Communism involves the theoretical, perfect, classless society with common ownership of all economic "means of production."
Definition of Fascism: System of Marxism resisting the Worker's Revolution. A true definition of Fascism must recognize its deep roots in Marxism.
Definition of Anarchy: Opposition to State Authority in favor of - well - Gangs. They said it couldn’t be done; but even the most cursory Definition of Anarchy shows it to be even more stupid than Communism.
Definition of Socialism: Intermediary phase between Marxism and Communism. Definition of Socialism: 1) The older ideology with "collective" ownership of power and means of production; 2) Marx's "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat" evolving toward Communist Utopia.
Definition of Democracy: Ideology stressing direct or electoral majority rule. The definition of Democracy as a form of government involves policy and law determined by the actual, real majority of the people governed.
Definition of Republic: A state in which sovereignty rests with the people. This definition of Republic stresses autonomy and rule-of-law, and places the root of sovereignty in the people or their electorate.
Liberal Democracy defines elected representative government under rule-of-law. Liberal Democracy is differentiated from Social Democracy by not restricting the right to private property, which is to say, the means of production.
A pure Democracy that left the natural economy alone would be ideal. Pure Democracy in the Jeffersonian model, with unfettered free market Capitalism, would out-perform any other system.
Description of pure Socialism - the ideal that all Socialism is driving toward. A true, pure Socialism would be something considerably less than the Utopians dream of, since perfection is not of this world, or of this life, and will never be encountered in either.
Social Democracy defines an attempt to force-fit Marxist ideas into a Democracy. Social Democracy, neither fish nor foul, seeks, by devious means, by the gradual rather than revolutionary path, the ultimate victory of Communism, or, Communist Utopia.
Legally Destroying America, through Defining Treason Down. American Political Parties are swiftly dismantling Constitutional government, having first defined treason down to the point of non-existence.
Our definition of anti American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may oppose nationalism or national pride. Definition of anti American: one who ignores or opposes the American Constitution.
Our definition of pro American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may be a patriot. Definition of pro American: one who loves and adheres to the American Constitution.
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the