IMVHO this is more a fictional story to justify issues in actual westerns society...
Few purposed vague elements, that if detailed reveal their incoherence:
- subsidiarity :: how a large community/entity can help but not interfere? Let's take a simple example: in India there are various cohort of population, let's focus on Indus and Muslims. Indus consider cows sacred animals, they can be milked but not confined nor slaughtered fro their meat. Muslims eat cows, so slaughter them for that purpose BUT do not eat pigs, a religious crime for them, while Indus have no issues in eating pigs. Suppose you are the bigger entity: how can you help them without interfere?
- family policy :: a family designed by mother, father and children miss a part: the two parents have also their parents, who happen to get elderly, for instance. Their children at a certain point in time will leave family. Making a family an atom who form molecules, means the society can't exists. Original family ideas came from a more practical élites needs: people to live need to be a bit together and reproduce, they need to be balanced in sex terms for that and for social stability BUT "we" (élite) need also something for them. Let's define them a family, saying any family have to give something to the élite: food, young sane people for war etc. Locking peoples in such mindset it's easy to say: you parents need to reproduce, more than one child because he/she can die, some are needed to work to live, some are tribute for war etc do not care much about you, your duty is the family. You child you have a family, you need to represent it, so go to war and work hard, do not care much about your duty it the family. That's the simplest and easiest subdivision of humans to direct them as a flock. As single families they need someone who handle their disputes, they have a simple duty they believe etc. The rest of the society is designed with the same scenario: authorities/élites are "parents", families their children who need to obey.
Autarchy is a dream, sci-fi movies prove it regularly design autonomous starship with a small set of humans traveling the galaxy, in the past that was Conestoga wagon, equally nomadic life and so one. All depict the dream but omit how anything is built. Who built the starship, for instance. That's left aside because it's the core of the gamble: we need something organized differently, often some people forced to live bad life to makes others happy etc.
Taxes is equally used here in psychological terms instead of in economical terms: they are weaponized instead being clearly described as a way to avoid some earn too much respect of others. A social leveling mechanism. Again they aren't cited like that because if so we have to say that money is not a value no-one-really-know who control it but just a symbol we agree to use as a unit of measure for a substrate NOT as the substrate of anything like we do today.
It's a classic way to use emotions for stopping people think and demand clarity, making them blindly trust something.