"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history." -Cardinal Francis George

Monday, October 24, 2011

Subsidiarity and Distributism

A friend writes:

I'd like to get your opinion on the idea of a "one world government"? Evangelical people always associate it with evil / end time / anti-christ. What is your opinion (or what does the RCC teach) about it?

I don't think of things in terms of government "types". And I think in general the Catholic Church operates that way too. The "types" of governments we often compare with one another just seem to be different types of pickpocketing, or different types of cages to organize wage slaves (that is you and me). Choosing between anarchy, democracy, republic, or monarchy, is like choosing between brown eggs or white: Who cares what the shell looks like, what is inside? Is it rotten or yummy.

That yumminess increases the more a government lets families take more and more power. For example: familial ownership (not corporations) of the means of production. And decreases when the government tries to be the family by doing work given to families ( example: declaring sodomite marriage to be just fine).

If we ignore the types and focus on principle, the main, basic principle that will lead to a good government (whatever the "type") is the Catholic principle of Subsidiarity. As far as a "one world" government, of course the world has been-there-done-that in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, so we don't have to wonder about it, history can tell us about it. And history tells us it is a neutral thing. It aint good or bad to have a one world government. Jesus lived under a one world government and didn't seem too upset about it. Personally what form my government takes makes me want to yawn. As long as my family has freedom to be Catholic and freedom from the "tyranny of relativism" (as BXVI puts it), I don't much care what they do... as long as they leave my family the hell alone when we try to practice our religion. And if they dont, then I will practice it anyway, and when Obama's goons come for my family, and my case of 1000 armor peircing 7.62mm rounds are spent, they can come nail us to crosses. A one world government did that to Jesus, and very small governments can do it too. And that is why the ideal government will always be the same size... the size of a family. The King just builds the road out in front of the family's house, but the family uses it. The FAMILY is the kingdom, NOT the King. So to define that government as a "monarchy" is not useful, because it says nothing about what the family does in the monarchy. See what I mean?

The Catholic magisterium sees the family as the top form of government in any society, with all other levels being of far less importance, or subsidiary to the family. Understanding this will help one to understand why Catholics get so upset about changes to the way a society views marriage. When society redefines marriage, they are striking the root of the tree... the family. The ussurpation of the identity and rights of the family is truly a revolution of greater significance than the French or American ones. JP2 and many others condemned communism and fascism, because they tend to take the rights of families away.

Here is the CCC on the principle of subsidiarity:

"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Subsidiarity is not followed very well by most governments, including the US of course. Socialist, banana republic weasels like Obama would not like it at all, and would hate Distributism even more.

The way the principle of subsidiarity "fleshes out" best is Distributism. Distributism was envisioned by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Beloc, who are my favorite 20th century thinkers. Almost everyone dislikes Distributism, so it is still left untried and unheard of. Capitalists hate it, commies hate it. I love it.

Hehe, Evangelicals and the end times, I have been there done that too. What if we had a one-world government and it was a GREAT government? What if it wasn't a tyranny but was all smiles and roses? I suppose they would be expecting the antichrist even more. As for me, I already live under a one world government... Christendom. Christ is the King of Kings, and I don't think that is figurative. Any government that does not submit to that fact is just organized thuggery who are given power by the true King to make martyrs. They are mere pawns.

1 comment:

  1. Democracy=two wolves and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.