Invented as an argument against the welfare state, this Catholic social principle is now being used against human rights.

According to subsidiarity the job should be done, whenever possible, locally. In 19th-century Italy, saying that the smallest unit should handle things meant, in effective, that the parish should continue to run social services. Sometimes called “localism” by neo-conservatives, it helps them justify dismantling state services, whether or not these are handed over to the churches. The Vatican is even using “subsidiarity” to try to undermine United Nations declarations on human rights.

The Vatican managed to get a limited application of the principle of subsidiarity ― as it applies to churches ― adopted in the constitution of the EU in 1997: “The European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.” [5]

Then in 2013 a broad endorsement of the principles of subsidiarity and “margin of appreciation” was incorporated into the Preamble of Europe's human rights convention itself. This was done through Protocol 15, which had been negotiated by the British Governement. [6] It endorsed the principle of subsidiarity ― according to which national governments, legislatures and courts are primarily responsible for guaranteeing and protecting human rights at the domestic level ― along with the ‘margin of appreciation’, which gives states discretion as to how they fulfil their Convention obligations. [7]

This anti-government principle has been take over by those opponents of the state whose interest is primarily financial. In the US the rightwing Republican Party made plans to transfer social programmes from the federal government to the states. This was expected to weaken them, since the states are far more captive than the federal government to special interests, both commercial and religious, and they have far less oversight by government inspectors and journalists. [9]

Please READ the whole article.