FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Your thoughts on this article about the Catholic Principle of Subsidiarity
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(06-21-2009, 10:40 PM)GodFirst Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/...le_200.php

Love it, thought it was utterly fantastic, thanks for the link! +1 fishie for you.
I loved it too +2, thanks for sharing, I actually am going to print it out to study more - I especially love the fact that the author is not only a priest but Greek-rite like myself Smile
As far as I know the Principle of Subsidiarity arises from the 'natural law' of God's providence. God is the fountainhead of all goodness and human beings participate in its providence, as in a community and as an individual. In the social context, a bigger body (ex: a community) should only help a smaller body (ex: an individual) if help is really needed and to the extent it is needed. Wedged in between two extremes, that of Marxism and Capitalism, this principle is really an ideal. The US Bishops' call for state moderation is a laudable one but where is the boundary between social welfare and personal responsibility?
I liked very much everything he said about subsidiarity. I didn't like his linking it to "free trade markets". This term is code for keeping the Fed and it's cousins WTO, IMF, World Bank, Hedge Funds, I Bankers, Wall Street Wizards, UN, and pagan NGO's , exempt from any interference. It would seem to me that subsidiarity would include some sort of Unions, or Guilds, that would create their own internal rules and co-operate with other similar organizations to regulate industry/commerce justly. You may find this odd but that includes regulating trade to create fair markets. How is it that we have our consciences formed to be right thinking, and have confession for the remission of sins, through examination of conscience,  but want  trade markets without any thing similar. It seems to me this is a negation sin as if by some miracle it will control itself. That's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it.
tim
(06-22-2009, 10:37 AM)timoose Wrote: [ -> ]I liked very much everything he said about subsidiarity. I didn't like his linking it to "free trade markets". This term is code for keeping the Fed and it's cousins WTO, IMF, World Bank, Hedge Funds, I Bankers, Wall Street Wizards, UN, and pagan NGO's , exempt from any interference. It would seem to me that subsidiarity would include some sort of Unions, or Guilds, that would create their own internal rules and co-operate with other similar organizations to regulate industry/commerce justly. You may find this odd but that includes regulating trade to create fair markets. How is it that we have our consciences formed to be right thinking, and have confession for the remission of sins, through examination of conscience,  but want  trade markets without any thing similar. It seems to me this is a negation sin as if by some miracle it will control itself. That's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it.
tim
I saw that too. I want moral markets, not "free" markets. So I'm totally with you, timoose.
(06-21-2009, 10:40 PM)GodFirst Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/...le_200.php

When I was in school tho aspects were emphasized for the subsidiarity:

- negative subsidiarity, which says that every problem should be resolved at the lowest possible level

- positive subsidiarity which says that if the lower levels are unable or unwilling to resolve the problems
(on that time like the laissez faire capitalism the social issues, today would be like the private insurance
system the adequate health care in the US) than the higher revel should step in to resolve the problem.

We learned it related to the Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo anno.

It seems to be logical, the common good is higher value than any other principle or right

(06-22-2009, 10:37 AM)timoose Wrote: [ -> ]I liked very much everything he said about subsidiarity. I didn't like his linking it to "free trade markets". This term is code for keeping the Fed and it's cousins WTO, IMF, World Bank, Hedge Funds, I Bankers, Wall Street Wizards, UN, and pagan NGO's , exempt from any interference. It would seem to me that subsidiarity would include some sort of Unions, or Guilds, that would create their own internal rules and co-operate with other similar organizations to regulate industry/commerce justly. You may find this odd but that includes regulating trade to create fair markets. How is it that we have our consciences formed to be right thinking, and have confession for the remission of sins, through examination of conscience,  but want  trade markets without any thing similar. It seems to me this is a negation sin as if by some miracle it will control itself. That's just my opinion but I'm sticking to it.
tim

I think your assumption that advocating free trade markets is equivalent to keeping the status quo in international finance is erroneous.  That is not a fair correlation, especially considering that this article comes from the Acton Institute (which is geared towards libertarian economic principles).  The very institutions you names are actually obstacles to a truly free market system.  They are all forms of institutionalized monopolies, whether they be trade monopolies, currency monopolies, or financing monopolies.  Coercive monopolies such as these are contrary to free market principles, because they disallow free competition in their respective areas.  Trade guilds and unions are not necessarily the answer, either, because they often turn into labor monopolies, disallowing free individuals to act in contradiction to the union or guild.  That is not an improvement for the cause of justice.
If it is in fact as you say about the Acton Institute I still disagree. Free trade allows for derivatives and commodities. and without any regulation the traders will find schemes to corner markets, as they have done since the time of Joseph. If we return to Commercial Banking and Savings and Loans while men own small business, the men with money still have the money. What would stop them from their usual social engineering with their money?  These people will not come to heal. I have worked with some of these people and know them. They have no morals.  They are amoral, and will crush anyone in their path. I know how they can turn and not blink an eye. So if their is some ideal state of business that Acton Institute has modeled, will you first dispatch these money men? Because they will crush this idea through their unlimited resources, and their perverse amoral social engineering. I am speaking from nearly forty years of being the Engineer in charge in Manufacturing Companies. I set the methods for estimating and pricing of all of our projects. Nothing was sold without my approval of price.
tim
(06-22-2009, 05:04 PM)timoose Wrote: [ -> ]If it is in fact as you say about the Acton Institute I still disagree. Free trade allows for derivatives and commodities. and without any regulation the traders will find schemes to corner markets, as they have done since the time of Joseph. If we return to Commercial Banking and Savings and Loans while men own small business, the men with money still have the money. What would stop them from their usual social engineering with their money?  These people will not come to heal. I have worked with some of these people and know them. They have no morals.  They are amoral, and will crush anyone in their path. I know how they can turn and not blink an eye. So if their is some ideal state of business that Acton Institute has modeled, will you first dispatch these money men? Because they will crush this idea through their unlimited resources, and their perverse amoral social engineering. I am speaking from nearly forty years of being the Engineer in charge in Manufacturing Companies. I set the methods for estimating and pricing of all of our projects. Nothing was sold without my approval of price.
tim

There is nothing inherently wrong with derivatives or trading commodities.  Please prove to me otherwise.  These exchanges serve a purpose in the economy, and they have their own check.  It's called risk, and it is present in any sort of free enterprise.

Almost all of your concerns about bankers are negated if fractional reserve banking is eliminated.  Bankers wouldn't be very powerful at all if we didn't allow fractional reserve banking.  A true free market approach will not tolerate fractional reserve banking, because fractional reserve banking bases itself on allowing banks to lend out money that they are contractually obliged to pay back to the depositors at any given time.  Lending that money out is both risky and fraudulent.  In a full reserve system, runs on banks cannot occur, nor can excessive leveraging.  These are two of the biggest problems we face with our banking system in times of panic and depression.  I suggest you take a look at "Meltdown" by Thomas Woods.  I believe you'll find it very educational.

I'm not sure why you closed by mentioning your experience with estimating prices.  Are you advocating price fixing?
Pages: 1 2 3