To the Tea Partiers: End imperialism, take the money back

---

• 
• 
• 
• 0

---

Related Articles

• Obama’s economic recovery plan not a hit with economists
• Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition?
• ‘Get Money’ haircut identifies Seattle suspect

Increasingly obvious perils of government debt have given rise to public concern, and even alarm. Though some people argue the alarm is exaggerated, there is a growing segment of the population that is thinking long and hard about the future of our country in ways we have not seen before. In this article, I discuss the principled basis for practical solutions. In particular, I argue the principle of subsidiarity should be central in our deliberations as we forge ahead.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as “the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.” One notes the variant “subsidiary” is used in the definition, hardly the proper way to define a term, but perhaps revelatory of the difficulty we have with a principle that is often lacking in serious deliberations of public life.

Everyone wants to be happy, but human flourishing can be hindered or helped by our social and economic structures. Some such arrangements are almost essential for happiness, but our understanding of what makes people happy has been obscured, and with it our understanding of what makes for sound economic policy.

So it is worth recalling that human beings truly flourish when their rights are protected, when they are allowed to think and worship freely, and when they can claim the fruit of their labor and direct it to the good of their families and communities.

These rights and freedoms, especially ownership of property, also serve as a check on selfishness. By rightly claiming as mine what I have earned, I also accept someone’s rightful claims to property and thus put a check on unjust selfish claims. Conflicts inevitably arise, but most people flourish when the state effectively adjudicates their disagreements and supports their needs without intruding into the decisions that are properly theirs.

In this regard, all the state is tasked to do—and it is a lot— is to support the more fundamental institutions of civil society. This is what the principle of subsidiarity entails: leaving people free to do good by leaving the decisions and choices to the smallest unit able to make them. To define subsidiarity another way, it is the expression of a working democracy, in which people have freedom and responsibility for their own lives. It recognizes that people will work hard and will do good most of the time, not just for themselves but for those close to them, provided they are not prevented from doing so or incentivized to do otherwise.

The state violates subsidiarity is when it takes on complex problems that smaller units can resolve on their own. This is a crucial shift and one that generally reflects an overly pessimistic view of human nature—that people don’t know what is good for them—and an overly optimistic view of the state and its ability to plan and execute.

In no area do people expect the state to apply the principle of subsidiarity more than in the regulation of commerce through fiscal and monetary policy: what to tax, how to tax, and how much and whom to tax, and how to control money. And whereas monetary and fiscal policy are intertwined, fiscal policies that lessen the tax burden generally support the individual, the family, business, and social organizations—and are therefore more aligned with the principle of subsidiarity.