This brings me to the last point of my piece: a libertarian conception of subsidiarity violates another pillar of Catholic thought: solidarity. Pope Saint John Paul II has said the following (and considering his role in the Polish group “Solidarity,” we most likely ought to take his view very seriously):
Therefore political leaders, and citizens of rich countries considered as individuals, especially if they are Christians, have the moral obligation, according to the degree of each one’s responsibility, to take into consideration, in personal decisions and decisions of government, this relationship of universality, this interdependence which exists between their conduct and the poverty and underdevelopment of so many millions of people. Pope Paul’s Encyclical translates more succinctly the moral obligation as the “duty of solidarity”; and this affirmation, even though many situations have changed in the world, has the same force and validity today as when it was written.
On the other hand, without departing from the lines of this moral vision, the originality of the Encyclical also consists in the basic insight that the very concept of development, if considered in the perspective of universal interdependence, changes notably. True development cannot consist in the simple accumulation of wealth and in the greater availability of goods and services, if this is gained at the expense of the development of the masses, and without due consideration for the social, cultural and spiritual dimensions of the human being.
For one, this puts into question the oft-repeated libertarian idea that “capitalism brings new wealth to developing countries” (when it is clear that it most often brings it only to elites). But notice that, in looking to Pope Paul VI, he foregrounds the idea that solidarity requires our constant attention to the poor. If the poor cannot be adequately helped or protected by local governments (over and against our huge, globalized economy), how can we be expected to support libertarian subsidiarity? Again, local governance is itself a mediate good—the end of governance in general is the common good as expressed especially in solidarity; thus fetishization of libertarian federalism makes little sense within the context of Catholic Social Teaching.
Of course, it is good to emphasize locality when possible (hence the existence of the concept of subsidiarity in the first place). But such efforts must be done with an understanding of the way economies change. It is wholly possible that new technologies will make localization easier (say in the use of specific forms of green energy in certain regions that can best exploit those types of energy, e.g. solar energy in Arizona or wind energy in Iowa). One can support local farms or patronize local shops. It remains a good to involve oneself in local governance (I imagine doing so is the best way to realize how removed from reality is the idea of functional municipal government wrestling with global finance capital). What the future holds I cannot say; thus we must keep our eyes open for ways to truly enact subsidiarity in a globalized economy (co-ops like Mondragon present one possibility). But, if my argument above has left any mark, it ought to be clear to our eyes—even today—that subsidiarity is not at all libertarianism.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In