A friend recently drew my attention to an article arguing for robust federalism and a limitation on subsidiarity. In order to continue the ongoing discussion of subsidiarity and distributism that has become a feature of the Ink Desk on this site, I’m posting my reponse below:

I admit to reading the article somewhat hastily and in the midst of distractions but I can’t say that it impressed me greatly. If I understand the gist, the author is saying that pure subsidiarity leads to anarchy, i.e. struggles between conflicting power groups that cannot be resolved on a subsidiarist level, and therefore we need a strong government to police subsidiary function. The fact is that a system of checks and balances needs to be integral to political function, ensuring that subsidiary functions can work as smoothly as possible within a human, and therefore Fallen, context. No system will be perfect but the principle of the family’s centrality as the fundamental building block of a healthy society must be sacrosanct and therefore protected. This is the problem that must be resolved. Experience suggests that Big Government with its state-centralized education and health systems, and its one-size-fits-all mentality, is not the best place to invest our faith. I’d be willing to risk outbreaks of injustice on a local level if the only alternative is the danger of universal injustice, imposed by the jackboot of coercive central government.