Here is where I fundamentally differ from anarchists: *my goal is not the downfall or overthrow of the state*. In fact, I am largely indifferent to whether there is a government or not, or which type of government is best. *My goal is subsidiarity*: devolvement of power down to the lowest level of society, that can wield it efficiently and effectively.

This means that I usually agree with anarchists, in practice, since that level is usually the household, (religious) communities, or private business. If we one day manage to successfully devolve all power down to that level, then so be it. *Perhaps human states are simply an outdated model of governance.*

But it also means that I do not think being ruled by Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Eddie Wu, or $TRUMP is better than being ruled by the collective decisions of European voters, the people in my community, or by my husband. The one does not automatically follow from the other. Especially, if you are not living in America.

Unlike anarchism, which is a fixed state you can reach and declared victory, even if your celebration takes place on a pile of rubble — subsidiarity is a goal that can never be reached; a continual process. *Power will always push to centralize, as human societies are a natural centrifuge.* We must constantly fight to keep it dispersed.

I have had nearly two dozen years, to come to terms with *the virtue of obedience*, and to understand how to balance submission with my personal faith. In our age, this is arguably the least-popular virtue, after chastity. The obedient are mocked as mindless sheep. But that is the great error of feminism: not every human hierarchy is tyranny. *Not every human authority is illegitimate.* It is merely limited, restrained and qualified: by Natural Law, by the fine print in the Bible, and by the immediate or eventual competition with the return of the King of kings and Lord of lords.