You wrote:
“That, sir, is about the most retarded response I’ve ever heard.”
Since you don’t know what you’re talking about but haven’t stopped to simply admit that - it doesn’t surprise me you would say that.
“I give you a chance to tell us an example of this concept you keep insisting can singly describe how do interpret it, and you can’t come up with a single example to illustrate what might be meant. You are freaking crazy.”
No, just smart enough to realize that giving examples about how a principle will work inside something that doesn’t exist doesn’t really make sense.
>> “...how a principle will work inside something that doesn’t exist doesn’t really make sense.”
Here is a page about “the principle of subsidiarity,” as applied to the ECU. FWIW. (No endorsement of the accuracy of this paper is implied)
Nevertheless the main problem still exists: the variety of interests due to the heterogeneity in Europe. With the enlargement this problem will increase. Therefore conflicts on the right application of the principle of subsidiarity will become more frequent. To encounter this a special body could be created, that assembles deputies from the European Parliament, the national parliament and in case of federal structure members of regional assemblies. Its task would be the settling of conflicts on competence.
http://www.constitutional-convention.net/bulletin/archives/000093.html
DG
The encyclical seems to pretend a LOT of things.
Such an example would be quite in keeping with such extensive pages of pretense.