"We live in a highly interdependent economy that requires significant government activity. But we can choose to minimise the scope of that activity that happens at any one level. This would mean a large shift away from DC to the states, or preferably even more local levels."
It seems that, increasingly, states either need to embrace authoritarianism or accept that governing large numbers of free people is incredibly unwieldy. The antithesis to this, surely, is responsibility?
States, counties, households, individuals can and should be asked to look after themselves and determine what's in their own best interests. More importantly, they should be allowed to make bad decisions if such decisions are localised. You need to tell me what's good for you, and your slice of society should be left alone to do so.
I think if we attempt to intervene in parts of people's lives, solving real problems can be outsourced to bodies wholly inappropriate to dealing with them, instead of forcing people to confront their own actions.
The difficulty then is (a) when we have issues where the poor decisions at the local level impact the global ('negative externalities') and (b) when it's clear that there are systemic injustices at a local level, a higher authority is needed. This, for me, is the hardest part to get right - and where I'd see the bulk of the power of the executive. I believe, in theory at least, that's the role of the executive dictated by the founding fathers, I wonder how well in practice it's been implemented and has kept pace with the scale of the United States?
Agree with the principle. I think you are saying that if everything could be done locally then that would be great. But that leaves a problem of a) negative externalities (states upstream on the Mississippi River should not be able to just dump chemical waste in there that causes problems downstream, for example) and b) local decisions might have bad local consequences if the local system breaks down (for example is captured by special interests that treat certain groups badly). And I would add c) where no local devolvement is possible (a state can't declare war, only the country can)
I think that those three cases ought to be very tightly defined, and that at the moment that is not the case. For something like a minimum wage why would that happen at the national level? Or for issues like public pensions, healthcare policy. The ultimate power a citizen has its to move somewhere else in the country if they don't like the law where they live. Shifting policy to national level makes that impossible and fundamentally gives the citizen no choice in the laws they live under.
So in your case B, would you want the national government to intervene locally on something like minimum wage where a significant local majority vote for low minimum wage and doing so does not contradict the constitution?
"We live in a highly interdependent economy that requires significant government activity. But we can choose to minimise the scope of that activity that happens at any one level. This would mean a large shift away from DC to the states, or preferably even more local levels."
It seems that, increasingly, states either need to embrace authoritarianism or accept that governing large numbers of free people is incredibly unwieldy. The antithesis to this, surely, is responsibility?
States, counties, households, individuals can and should be asked to look after themselves and determine what's in their own best interests. More importantly, they should be allowed to make bad decisions if such decisions are localised. You need to tell me what's good for you, and your slice of society should be left alone to do so.
I think if we attempt to intervene in parts of people's lives, solving real problems can be outsourced to bodies wholly inappropriate to dealing with them, instead of forcing people to confront their own actions.
The difficulty then is (a) when we have issues where the poor decisions at the local level impact the global ('negative externalities') and (b) when it's clear that there are systemic injustices at a local level, a higher authority is needed. This, for me, is the hardest part to get right - and where I'd see the bulk of the power of the executive. I believe, in theory at least, that's the role of the executive dictated by the founding fathers, I wonder how well in practice it's been implemented and has kept pace with the scale of the United States?
Agree with the principle. I think you are saying that if everything could be done locally then that would be great. But that leaves a problem of a) negative externalities (states upstream on the Mississippi River should not be able to just dump chemical waste in there that causes problems downstream, for example) and b) local decisions might have bad local consequences if the local system breaks down (for example is captured by special interests that treat certain groups badly). And I would add c) where no local devolvement is possible (a state can't declare war, only the country can)
I think that those three cases ought to be very tightly defined, and that at the moment that is not the case. For something like a minimum wage why would that happen at the national level? Or for issues like public pensions, healthcare policy. The ultimate power a citizen has its to move somewhere else in the country if they don't like the law where they live. Shifting policy to national level makes that impossible and fundamentally gives the citizen no choice in the laws they live under.
An example of tightly defined in case b above would be school integration in Arkansas. The state government did not want to integrate their schools and was willing to deploy the National Guard to stop it from happening. Eisenhower deployed troops to make sure it did happen (https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/civil-rights-little-rock-school-integration-crisis#:~:text=When%20Governor%20Faubus%20ordered%20the,the%20Supreme%20Court%20were%20upheld.). This is a case of the national government overruling local government - but to enforce a constitutional right (no discrimination in access to public education) rather than to overrule whatever Arkansas voters wanted in terms of taxation, health etc.
So in your case B, would you want the national government to intervene locally on something like minimum wage where a significant local majority vote for low minimum wage and doing so does not contradict the constitution?