Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Proper Function of (Local) Government
At the risk of reigniting the libertarian-conservative Wars — Oh, who am I kidding? It’s fun! — I wanted to explore a subject we’ve touched on a number of times but never addressed in detail: the proper size and scope of local government.
Before discussing the differences between the two sides, I think it’s worth noting the areas of agreement. Almost to a man, I think libertarians and SoCons alike would greatly prefer a system in which the state and — even more so — federal governments limited their activities to a short list of defined powers but left cities and towns to their own devices. Put another way, we all have some preference for subsidiary over national government, and this is one of the foundational reasons for our alliance against the progressive Left.
Now, as for the differences:
Many conservatives are at least amenable to the argument that many powers are within the proper purview of local governments so long as they don’t abridge rights guaranteed by federal or state constitutions and are both accountable and responsive to their constituents. If citizens of a town, for instance, believes alcohol sales, porn shops, or businesses being open on Sundays harm their communities, that is their business and their right. If people do not like these laws, they can either campaign for their repeal or, as a last measure, move somewhere else. Regardless, outsiders have no right to impose their morality on polities not their own.
Generalizing again, libertarians oppose such laws on the grounds that — whether constitutional or not — governments should not be in the business of policing citizens’ behavior unless it demonstrably and directly impinges on others’ rights. There are, after all, other available remedies. If townspeople think stores should be closed on Sundays, they can boycott those who oppose such things, exclude their owners from membership in private business associations, publicly speak out against them, or even offer to simply buy them out. As Fred Cole has argued before, Amish communities are able to enforce strict rules about their members behavior independent of government participation or enforcement. There is nothing inherently “un-libertarian” about such arrangements.
Now, I think it’s worth noting that it’s possible to live a reasonably free and moral life in both situations. I’ve lived in counties with strict liquor laws and — irritating as I found them — did not feel my liberty particularly infringed in other ways. Millions of people also live within easy driving distance of pornography stores without having their children’s innocence permanently ruined. It’s possible to say these matters are important without either side resorting to hyperbole about endorsing licentiousness or small-scale tyranny.
Bear in mind that arguments about the scope of local government need not apply only to the sort of issues that generally divide libertarians and SoCons. A town or county could, for instance, enact fully-socialized medicine for its residents, upon the approval of 50%+1 of them, along with the crushing taxes necessary to maintain them. Alternatively, it could capriciously seize private property through eminent domain powers, so long as it offered just compensation. That such policies would likely be short-lived does not mean they wouldn’t happen.
So, let’s imagine we live in a world where classical liberalism has triumphed over progressivism at both the state and the national level. What levels of local government would you find offensive? At what point should local preferences — expressed either through direct democracy or the voters’ representatives — be overridden by those outside the community?
Image Credit: OleknutleeOleknutlee at en.wikipedia [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons
Published in General
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The reason I, as a libertarian, am not as concerned with local governments enacting laws abridging freedom is that there are more options open to the individual to maintain his liberty. The town where you live is more likely to reflect your overall values. You can move to a city or county that is more in line with your lifestyle. You can more easily change the mind of your fellow citizens.
While I would not be in favor of certain policies enacted by local governments I’m not troubled by them in the same way I am by State and Federal government laws.
If the city council wants to tell me how many sprinkles I can have on my ice cream, as long as it does not violate the constitution (per the point above), I say go nuts. TM, to your point, I can always move to the next town over (moving does not work as easily at the federal level, I like the Ricochet Canadian members as much as anyone but I’m not going to drink Molson or put gravy on my fries).
It seems to me that that is how things worked pretty well 100 years ago. One town was wet, the next dry, one town allowed gambling, the next didn’t
You are really missing out.
Malt vinegar on the fries – yum!
I agree with this, but I’d be hesitant to treat it as an easy fix. Moving is often a burdensome, expensive process both materially and otherwise.
OK people, you are obviously not getting it. Ketchup goes on fries and mustard goes on hotdogs. Period, end of story. When you all started making it popular to add other toppings and introduced gourmet dipping sauce for fries, everything started going downhill. Coincidence?
I don’t mind a large local government because I want the city/county governments to take more responsibilities that are held by the federal bureaucracy. I want the local government to run (100% run) education, natural resource management, transportation, law enforcement, and many more areas. If the town wants to regulate something or do something the people don’t agree with, it is much easier to fight and change. As it is now, I can’t vote out EPA officials or state and federal bureaucrats. Basically, I’m a 9th and 10th Amendment kind of guy.
What most offends me about current governments is not immediately their size, but their basis for authority. I believe that civil government only has authority by consent of the governed. I resent and oppose the current political apparatus because it has either forgotten the consent of governed, or it just found it inconvenient to continue paying lip-service to it.
A civil government should only be as big enough to perform the tasks that the citizens have explicitly consented to allow (not to mention explicitly agreed to pay for), and no more. In my opinion, the chief reason that governments have gotten so big is not because the citizens demanded it, but because self-starting and ambitious “public servants” have expanded it so they can perform more “services” (i.e., nanny-state bullying disguised as “services”) and then drop the bill on the taxpayers after they’ve already imposed their nonsense. Usually, the bill is calculated and padded and dropped on the citizens long after the citizens had any chance of stopping it, and is presented as a fait accompli. And when the “services” cost way more than the citizens agreed to, the servants just chalk it up as debt.
I think experience and prudence would urge citizens to keep government small, but I’m actually not opposed to a big government … if the people consent to it. For me, yes, size doesn’t matter. What I oppose is the shady and deceitful way public servants expand their own services without any meaningful consent.
When I see an election map by county, especially in a state like Illinois, and I see the state dominated by a few counties around Chicago, it makes me feel strongly that you are right, and the less centralized the government the better.
That’s a British thing. We use plain white vinegar.
It’s a delicious thing.
My particular brand of pseudo-anarcho-capitalism tells me that while a federal government is probably necessary for defense and diplomacy, state and local governments provide few services, if any, which would not be better left to the free market.
I was introduced to malt vinegar on fries on the boardwalk in Ocean City, Maryland – so if it’s a British thing, it’s also an American thing. (Keep the good!)
Oh no, revenue shortfall. Quick, cut the police force and let criminals out of the prisons. Also, raise taxes. – California, probably.
Additionaly, the smaller and more homogenous the electorate the more likely a majority will be found in favor of illiberal policies. In a sense the “consent of the governed” can serve simply to empower the state to enact more invasive measures than it would dare if it was known to be perceived as distant and unrepresentative.
No, Ketchup goes in trash. I’d rather have gravy or vinegar or a number of other things. I’ll even take my chips plain or lightly salted before I insult them with ketchup.
Oh man, watching me eat poutine would elicit in you an incident of spontaneous self-decapitation, because I sometimes (not always) put vinegar, ketchup, salt AND pepper on my poutine.
Is a municipality a “state”? In the US, aren’t most of ’em corporations?
Why ruin those other ingredients? At least tell me it’s not standard ketchup, that it’s green or fluorescent or something, please.
All governments are forms of corporation. But I think he meant the local government rather than state in that sense.
Oh, it’s GOTTA be Heinz, made in Leamington from good Southern Ontario tomatoes!
What’s the third ingredient listed on your bottle?
My Dad likes ketchup on his ham sandwiches (!?!?!) No accounting for taste, I guess. But Mom liked/likes mustard on the ham, so at least we kids got a choice. Grin.
Love?
Horseradish is good, too: on ham, on poutine, and on local government officials who overreach. (Just to get this thread back on trackish.)
Ketchup on ham is where I draw a line.
Yeah, that was a little imprecise but I suppose the point, such as it was, could apply to all levels of government.