Talk:Subsidiarity

message: "Article 9 of the proposed European constitution"
Is this refering to the new draft constitution? (as of 12 June 2004)
: The constitution proposal is a historical curiosity now and it fails wp:trivia to keep it in the article, so I have deleted the reference. --Red King (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article 9

message: Some anonymous user removed the quotation of paragraphs 79 and 80 of Quadragesimo Anno without giving the reason.  Please do not do this again. – Kaihsu 22:47, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
----
Added link to Distributism - a subsidiarity/CST based political movement.  Collincentre 04:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quadragesimo Anno

message: It would be interesting if we had valid material discussing the relationship between globalization and subsidiarity. The social structure of the Middle Ages was strongly marked by the doctrine of subsidiarity, and therefore some social scientists have argued that the medieval period had already gone through an archaic form of globalization. The European Union has officially adopted subsidiarity into its official structures, which still maintains a political influence to this to this day. And yet, it could be argued that globalization is the exact opposite of subsidiarity because decisions and policies are always adopted at the highest possible level, such as G-8, WTO and World Bank meetings. ADM (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Localism may be what you want. --Red King (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiarity vs. Globalization

message: The very first paragraph it states: "Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism."  
This statemant is simply an oxymoron as even the following sentence, in the 2nd paragraph, states that subsidiartiy is the concept behind the Tenth Ammendment to the US Constitution where it limits the powers of the FEDERAL gov't relative to the States.  Whereas Federalism concentrates power in a Central Federal Gov't. subsidiarity limits the powers of centralized government ti the more local state/local goverments.Micael (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you reach the conclusion that "Federalism concentrates power in a Central Federal Gov't"? The key difference between a federal system (even more so a confederation) is that power is not concentrated at the centre but rather that the centre only has those powers that the member states choose to delegate to it, so that it may act on their behalf in those matters where joint action is more effective than several action.  If subsidiary does not exist, it is an autocracy not a federation. --Red King (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiarity contradiction in the article

message: As the article stands, the 'Social teachings of the popes' side bar goes down beside the European Union law, which is offensive to many EU residents (athiests, protestants, jews, muslims) and misleading because it implies an association that does not exist.  There are two solutions to this.
# remove the template
# move the catholic teaching section behind the EU law section.
Personally I'd prefer the first, because it leaves the historicity intact, but the second is acceptable if the template must remain. --Red King (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove template "Social teachings of the popes" from the side bar or move the Catholic teaching to second place. 

message: I have made one minor edit to the first sentence (explained in summary), and a more substantive edit to the last sentence, which I explain more fully here.
First, I specified that the last sentence specifically addresses the use of "subsidiarity" as a concept in political theory. Second, I tightened up the language. Third, and most substantively, I eliminated some language making a vague attempt to define the idea of subsidiarity as it relates to the concept of federalism.
On the last point, I have three justifications: First, as a general matter, I think the definition of subsidiarity as a matter of political theory needs to be stated with greater accuracy, and that statement should be given under the appropriate subhead. Second, to define subsidiarity within "federalism" as asserting the "rights" of the "parts" over the "whole" is at best a very particular and non-neutral understanding of the term. I do not argue that this view of subsidiarity should not be described, as there are some political figures who appear to hold it, but I do argue that it cannot be represented to be a widely held or generally accepted understanding of the term. This leads me to my third justification, which could be viewed as a proposal: Subsidiarity is a recent import into the discourse of poltical theory centered on notions of federalism specific to the U.S. The role of subsidiarity within a federal structure has a longer history in European law and political theory, where the term is deployed quite differently than it is currently being used in the U.S. It seems to me that a major revision might be warranted that distinguishes and disaggregates these usages. Looping back to my edit, it seeemed to me that the sentence I modified in the first paragraph failed to be neutral in the sense that it addressed only one notion (a conservative US one), and thus was unsuitable for an introductory paragraph. Meherlihy (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to first paragraph 

message: The plan is to move from Subsidiarity (Catholicism) all templates, external links, and categories here, and add the only differing paragraph from there here under "Origins".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxcoder (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. This article is about the political theory, that article is about religious theory. They are sufficiently different to have independent articles.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Subsidiarity (Catholicism) 

message: My apologies to anyone puzzled by the 'what changed' note on my edit just now. Google Chrome was 'helpfully' autocorrecting my text, turning it into gobblydegook. ['nachos' was typed as 'navbox'!] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nachos??? 

message: Two points - firstly that there are numerous states which are based upon the principle of Subsidiarity, Switzerland being the prime example. The article makes the claim that it is in the context of the EU that it is best known - on what basis is this claim made? 
Secondly, there should perhaps be further consideration of critical views of the EU's subsidiarity - i.e., given that the ECJ does not rule on whether the principle of subsidiarity has itself been violated - rather, on whether appropriate claims have been made that it has not - it does not appear be as central to EU law as the article appears to suggest.
dpchalmers (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Eurocentric?