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
Great topic Tom (the local government part, the answer to the fries question is obvious), this has been one of my internal struggles for some time. My overarching philosophy has been for smaller government ever since I shed the progressive stench I carried through college (about 30 years) or so. Mostly because it seems so clear that government run stuff is always so icky and it eliminates alternatives. That said, I find the devil in the details.
As much as I agree with Gaius in principle, when I look at specifics it gets a little woolier. I can’t see an argument for private police or fire services. I can see the argument for private roads, but its hard to picture that working in reality. Even on the welfare front — I can talk a big game about people working hard and pulling themselves out of tough circumstances ( I did it myself ) but I’m a softy at heart, I struggle with holding someone accountable for a mistake they might have made in their youth. And on it goes….
I will say that I’m much more comfortable with local folks making these choices.
The argument for what is appropriate and what is not is one that has no answer. The framers came as close to perfect as imperfect people can get. They even said so. On the issue of the size and scope of local governments go, it’s the responsibility of the community being governed to determine that for themselves.
One could argue that regardless of the wishes of a very liberal community who want government run health care that there is no place for government run health care on a local or state level at all. That person could very well be right, and if the functions of government are working as they were intended, the end result would be no government run health care.
You see my point?
I do enjoy malt vinegar on my fries, and could be sympathetic to trying gravy, but it would have to be on the side and dipped. Anything that makes fries soggy defeats the purpose of frying. On my hot dogs (for which the only proper preparation method is grilling over natural charcoal until it resembles Anakin Skywalker after Mustafar), I do enjoy mustard with Ted’s hot sauce and onion.
For local governments, I definitely fall more on the side of restricting their powers, especially when certain businesses can police themselves. The porn shops, at least around here, keep out of the way, and use plain-sounding euphemisms (Adult Books; News & Books, etc) to make themselves very unobtrusive and easy to ignore. It’s easy to keep your kids away from them.
A person is free to patronize or not patronize whatever business they want. A person is also free to wish that other people did or did not patronize certain business, and to try to persuade them if they so desire. What crosses the line is attempting to use the force of law to restrict voluntary commerce. A free people can decide they don’t want something in their community. The moment they try to force it out, however, they become a gang of thugs.
If done right, the gravy melts the cheese curds, which coat the fries and defends them from the onslaught of gravy.
Remember, it’s not just gravy. There should be copious amounts of cheese involved.
That’s not quite true. The Amish, although generally given a wide berth, are still part of and within the rest of society – including the government it comes with. The part that is most out of place about the Amish example, though, is that the Amish aren’t generally interested in forcing people to be Amish; they’re worried about being able to remain Amish in a substantial way. You don’t want to follow the Amish way? Fine, but then you can’t be part of the Amish community because you’ll likely do grave harm to that community if you were allowed to stay.
“Regular” community works the same way; community is physical and geographic, in addition to it’s purely notional qualities. I like living in the big city. There are many real benefits. But one acknowledged downside is that’s it’s often too diverse to foster community in any real sense. Diversity isn’t bad per se, but neither is it an undiluted good. Trade offs, as usual.
One significant problem with separating local, state, and federal governments is the degree to which the higher levels have grown tentacles into the lower. I just completed a year on my county’s board of supervisors and did not realize how much we are compelled to do. We deliver many of the services specified by other entities, often with less than the amount of funding that requires. Aside from that, however, is just how little the average citizen thinks about the local government, let alone his or her beliefs about what it should or shouldn’t be doing. Boy that was an Eeyore-esque comment.
I wasn’t aware that was a huge problem in the US. I was under the impression that municipalities were more-or-less independent corporations. Too bad I was wrong.
Up here in the Great White North, the constitution explicitly makes municipalities serfs of the provincial governments. The province can amalgamate neighbouring cities on a whim, putting rural (conservative) municipalities/townships at the mercy of the urban (socialist) central cities.
Pretty much the same here, Misthiocracy. Municipal corporations are governed under state law. If the state legislature makes a law and the governor signs it, it is so. Each state has different structures for municipal corporations. One might have a structure of village, town, and city. Another might have only township and city, etc. Here in Michigan, if a municipal corporation gets into financial trouble, the state can appoint a financial manager to run it, which has happened in several instances all the way up to Detroit.