Coataimundi. You mentioned “political grandstanding”, “rhetorical appeals”, and the desire “to attract attention”
I think you are correct on all of these.
But one aspect of all of this that caught my attention (and I guess I didn’t make that clear enough in my prior post) was that some people can’t get enough of BIG GOVERNMENT.
This violates the principle of subsidiarity that is, “a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.” (Definition here).
CCC 1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” 7
(CCC 1883 here)
Some of the people are not satisfied with bureaucrats in the capital (in this case Lansing, MI). They want BIGGER government. So you think they will turn to Washington D.C. (HUGE Government). But no. That isn’t BIG enough.
So CBS Detroit (and some people) essentially implore the UN for help. “Ahhh. BIG BIG government. Global governance. That’s better.”
I just don’t understand why so many people want BIG and BIGGER GOVERNMENT metastasizing deeper and deeper into their lives.
It is a good thing the UN does not have the power to tax otherwise they’d be proverbially telling you how your hair should and should not be parted.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying government has no role here (or many other areas). I am just saying the UN potentially interfering with a local municipalities water issues clearly is not preserving the subsidiarity principle.
I am also not denying that there are issues with the water situation in Detroit. (I am just saying the people there can take care of the situation better than Washington D.C. or the UN).
This kind of mentality (i.e. “I as a politician NEED to make all meaningful decisions in everyone else’s lives. These people are beasts. They can’t really make decisions and come up with appropriate solutions on their own. They need ME, a distant government official, to make these decisions for them.”) can easily be over reaching.
*]Outlawing incandescent light bulbs.
*]Outlawing “Big Gulps”.
*]Outlawing “McDonald’s Happy Meals”.
*]Inventing a BIG GOVERNMENT social program for every societal woe.
*]Now asking the UN to intervene in a municipal water issue here?
Big Government is not up to things like this.
??The UN to help with municipal water issues?? This strikes me as quite extreme.
From Catholiucculture.org . . . .
. . . On the other hand, the government should not intervene to attempt to alleviate all problems. A welfare or “nanny” state, offering cradle-to-grave security and attempting to provide for all human needs, expands the state beyond its proper scope and violates the principle of subsidiarity. Pope John Paul II explained:
[INDENT]Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus 48)
This overreaching by the state leads to situations that are both inefficient and detrimental to human welfare:
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. (Centesimus Annus 48) . . .