Our proposal of a State is one where the principle of subsidiarity is practiced to a high degree. As a result, the State respects individual social units oriented towards the common good and recognizes certain rights, functions, and privileges that allow them their own autonomy, or even quasi-sovereign rights.
Thus each region develops its own customary laws and traditions. Each guild, university, or religious association maintains its own way of self-government and self-regulation. The result is a patchwork of local authorities at all levels exercising unique powers proper to them. David Herlihy writes that it is a “kind of partnership in the exercise of power,” a “shared jurisdiction and authority,”(*) which made of the medieval State a federation of autonomous social entities—each suited to its own needs, each with immense cultural and social richness, each generating veritable cohorts of legendary figures.
(*) David Herlihy, History of Feudalism (New York: Walker, 1971), 207. “The nature of feudal government,” Herlihy states, “excluded all possibility of a true absolutism” (ibid).
John Horvat II, Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society—Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go (York, Penn.: York Press, 2013), 208.