I just disagree with your terminology in this case. And I suspect you have not disambiguated the terms you use into first principles so that you can argue your intuitions with sufficient precision to separate your statements from opinions to arguments.
So far:
a) We have unwound your emphasis on subsidiarity (hierarchy). This was a leap in my understanding of your objections. That aspect of your criticism stands on its own now. We have a first principle to argue from that we seem to agree upon.
b) We still need to unwind your emphasis on capitalism (which is a bias in favor of private control of capital) and very difficult to argue against. I have no idea what the term means to you.
c) And then unwinding whatever is your definition of liberalism. I have no idea what that term means to you either.

I suspect you would recognize this criticism:
–“Liberalism originated as a reaction to tyranny (aristocratic, clerical, or collectivist), evolved into a system of economic and political optimization for cooperation among equals, and has fragmented as the concept of equality expanded beyond reciprocity into moral entitlement. It remains the moral grammar of Western civilization: the attempt to reconcile autonomy with cooperation through law rather than faith or force.”–

But I suspect that you also hold suspect the well meaning fools who are responsible or not. But without discovering a means by which we identify people whose values, understandings, ideas and incentives can ensure the groups persistence, competitiveness, condition, and of course sovereignty by subsidiarity.

In Context:

1. Classical Liberalism (Locke, Smith, Mill)
= Rule of law, private property, individual liberty.
→ Doolittle: “Worked better, in an evolutionary sense, than the alternatives”.

2. Progressive / Egalitarian Liberalism
= Drifted from reciprocity toward redistribution and moral universalism, abandoning empirical grounding.
→ Doolittle calls this “the failure of Enlightenment liberalism to stay within natural law.”

3. Anglo Classical Liberalism (Ideal)
= “Elimination of rents” and full accountability within markets of voluntary cooperation.

4. Propertarian Completion
= Formalization of liberalism as a science of cooperation: every act, policy, or law must pass the reciprocity test (no involuntary transfer, no externalized cost).

However, under such sovereignty the practicality of producing commons via an institution of market government must function – hence the necessity of homogeneity in a population – made worse by the destruction of the family through working women, and the consequential impossibility of reconciliation between the sexes that is driving the ‘bad parts’ that undermine our sovereignty and therefore our Subsidiarity. Individualism in the familial sense is fine. In the homogenous polity sense is fine. But it fails at the individual scale due to incommensurability between the sexes, and it fails beyond the homogeneous scale because of group differences.

My argument would be that the problem is that classes and sexes demonstrate vastly different will and ability to bear responsibility to the group and as such for any such system to work we must not allow the irresponsible to participate in the production of commons we call government, nor in the institutions of state which preserve responsibility (court and bureaucracy) etc.