| Subject: | [socialcredit] Subsidiarity or The Family Wage, on Fig11e.gif | | Date: | Monday, August 29, 2005 11:10:34 (-0400) | | From: | wesburt <wesburt @....com>
|
Hi folks,
In the brief excerpt below I seem to have
reached the best statement I am able to make
of TOP (The Optimum Policy) for any
national economy.
When implemented, TOP restores the free market
(which the USA lost in 1898 when the AEA lost
its founding principles) and eliminates the shortage
of purchasing power among parenting families; as
adumbrated by Thomas Paine, Pope Leo X III,
H. Belloc, B. Russell, C. H. Douglas, Louis Even,
R. Theobald, and Pope John Paul II . I am much
obliged to Dave Taylor on list Distributism for
his contribution to the excerpt below.
~~~~~~~~~~ Brief excerpt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 05-06-11, Wes Burt writes:
>Before we get to the above mentioned "faulty
>application" of the Christian Principle of
>Subsidiarity, here is the way "Subsidiarity"
>is defined by the National Conference of
>Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C., in their
>book, ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR ALL, 1986:
"Just as it is gravely wrong to take from
individuals what they can accomplish
by their own initiative and industry and
give it to the community, so also it is an
injustice and at the same time a grave
evil and disturbance of right order to
assign to a greater and higher association
what lesser and subordinate organizations
can do. For every social activity aught of
its very nature to furnish help (subsidium)
to the members of the organization, and
never destroy and absorb them."
Dave Taylor replies:
The one defence I will make of this is that it
is true if taken in the "all or nothing" sense of
Aristotelian logic. The context is rejection
of both Russian-style communism and
Western-style "bread and circuses" imperialism.
Wes Burt writes:
>When taken at face value, without serious
>consideration of the prerequisites for a
>profitable and stable corporate structure,
>the above definition of "Subsidiarity" does
>two things:
>a, It turns the public mind against taxes or
>tithes, thereby negating Louis Blanc's
>"governing principle of the state," which
>added the two moral Commandments needed
>to change the Ten Commandments (Decalogue)
>into the Whole Divine Law as illustrated
>in Fig7-9h.gif.
Dave Taylor replies:
Yes.
Wes Burt writes:
>b, It makes the concept of a "supplement to
>earned income from the public revenue;" as
>proposed by Thomas Paine, P. M. Pitt-the
>younger, Pope Leo X III, Bertrand Russell,
>Sir John Wally KBE CB, and Pope John
>Paul II a grave evil and disturbance of
>right order."
Dave Taylor replies:
Yes. Lots of naive clerics have been taken in
by neo-Conservative propaganda. The "grave
evil" is in fact to take this out of the context
of "the reciprocity of rights and duties" and
thus ignore the need for leaders to provide
or facilitate suitable types of mutual service.
~~~~~~~~~~ End brief excerpt ~~~~~~~~~
If there is any comment on this note, please
copy Wesburt@juno.com. I will be closing
some of my lists.
Kind regards,
Wes Burt
The Optimum Policy (TOP) is shown on
Dr. W. Curtiss Priest's web site at:
<http://www.epie.org/cyber-soc/default.htm>;
If you can't refute it, then make it public knowledge.
|
Subsidiarity or Th
Reply to this message