Combinationalism

Waldish philosopher Knut Arvidsen is widely credited with laying the philosophical foundation for combinationalism.

Combinationalism, sometimes known as Arvidsenism or Dignitarianism, is a political and economic ideology that rose to prominence in the Northern world during the early 20th century. Combinationalism is based around the dual mandate principle, which claims that the purpose of the state is to ensure human dignity by maximizing both property rights and social justice. Combinationalists argue that these two objectives inherently conflict, creating a paradox where the existence of the state is simultaneously moral and immoral. The combinationalist solution to this paradox is public stewardship, a model in which the state seeks out the most efficient possible solution for social problems to minimize its infringement upon both components of the dual mandate. Adherents of the movement are diverse in their views, but generally support limited government, subsidiarity, free trade, a consistent life ethic, familialism, optimal taxation, and welfare reform.

Combinationalism developed in Waldrich during the late 19th century as an outgrowth of Cathedralist social teaching. The philosopher Knut Arvidsen is widely credited with laying the ideology's philosophical foundation with his 1987 essay Property and Justice, which coined much of the terminology associated with combinationalist discourse. After the Recession of 1924, combinationalist movements entered the political mainstream in several countries in TBA as a center-right solution to the social question. TBA became the first nation with an openly combinationalist government in 1930, when TBA and his TBA Party rose to power in the aftermath of the TBA. Combinationalism spread to Calesia after the Great War, when it was embraced by Gregorian democratic parties to serve as a model for post-war reconstruction. Waldish Lawspeaker Karl Fjellheim was an early proponent of Calesian combinationalism, enacting a series of economic and social reforms during the 1940s that became known internationally as the Waldish model.

Political scientists generally categorize combinationalism as a center-right ideology, occupying a middle ground between the interventionist approach of ordoliberalism and the laissez-faire approach of classical liberalism and right-libertarianism. However, combinationalism remains difficult to classify due to the significant ideological diversity between different movements. As a result, combinationalism has often been referred to as a “big-tent” ideology unified only by adherence to the dual mandate principle.

Philosophy

Despite the significant ideological heterogeneity within combinationalism, the vast majority of combinationalists adhere to several core principles. The most foundational concept in combinationalism is the dual mandate principle, which claims that the purpose of the state is to promote human dignity by maximizing both property rights and social justice. Combinationalists argue that these two objectives are inherently in conflict, as it is impossible to fully realize one without infringing on the other. For example, state efforts to ensure equal access to healthcare necessarily require coercive action that infringes upon the property rights of others, such as funding public health services through taxation. Conversely, refraining from action altogether allows the state to fully respect the property rights of its citizens, but leaves it powerless to ensure a just society with equal access to healthcare. Combinationalists view both outcomes as morally unacceptable, resulting in the paradox of the state - the situation in which both state action and inaction are simultaneously necessary and unethical. Although many combinationalists believe that a functional voluntary or anarcho-capitalist society with private charity is theoretically the most ethical solution to the paradox, they argue that such an arrangement is impossible and would not be capable of upholding either side of the dual mandate even if it were implemented.

To rectify this predicament, combinationalists argue that the state's legitimacy relies upon its ability to find the "least bad" course of action, essentially achieving a Pareto optimal moral equilibrium. Combinationalists claim that this outcome is achieved through public stewardship, the concept that the state has a moral obligation to operate efficiently. Under public stewardship, efficiency is defined as ensuring access to the best possible essential services while infringing on negative rights the least. Failing to efficiently manage, or "steward", resources and capabilities that the state has acquired through force delegitimizes its authority, as it has deprived individuals of their property unnecessarily. Likewise, ineffective stewardship of public resources deprives the people of superior essential services that could have otherwise been provided, making it morally reprehensible on both fronts.

Closely related to the concept of public stewardship is that of subsidiarity, which proposes handling issues at the lowest level capable of effectively resolving the problem. Subsidiarity calls for empowering local authorities to handle situations that are unsuited for central government intervention, and to provide community-based solutions that are specifically tailored to local needs. Combinationalists argue that this system inherently more efficient than centralized governance, as it allows for solutions to be applied on a more personal level that recognizes the different needs of various populations. Subsidiarity also advocates for churches, families, and community organizations to provide solutions when possible, reducing societal reliance on state coercion for essential services.