Examining the indefensible notion that all centralized government is evil, bad, and to be avoided at all costs. Part of the "Big Lies: Free-Market Economics" series from the LowGenius Network.
"Monarchy is based on the idea that one man is smarter than a million men. How's that again? I missed something.
Democracy is based on the idea that one million men are smarter than one man. Huh, that one doesn't scan either."
- Robert A. Heinlein (paraphrased)
As a lifelong progressive and rationalist, I've recently found myself in some pretty vitriolic disagreements with self-styled "libertarians," "small-government" advocates, Ron Paul fans, and similar ilk.
One of the major talking points of such folks is the idea that local control, local government by people you "know," is always preferable to centralized government.
On the face of things it's obviously a valid point to make; a police officer who is familiar with his beat and the people on it will be more engaged with local citizens and build a healthier and more effective relationship with them, in part because of cultural similarities.
Okay, that's great as far as it goes...but do we really need fifty-two separate bodies of legislation to make murder against the law in every state? Do we really benefit from having different road construction and signage standards in every state? Do we actually gain anything by having motorcycle helmets required to one standard in one state, a different standard in another, and not at all in yet another?
I don't think we do, unless "we" means "lawyers who make a lot of money keeping track of these things because it's impossible for the average person." Even our laws governing the legality of sexual relations are not consistent from state to state...yet somehow each state is supposed to maintain mutual "full faith and credit"1 in regards to each other's laws. This particular issue has become quite prominent lately with regards to the question of gay marriage...and echoes from earlier issues with interracial marriage.2
Bad logic is bad
The gist of this argument relies on a subtle but clear reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If it makes sense to have individual police officers not commuting coast-to-coast for work, then it makes sense to have the laws they enforce doing the same thing. Huh? Exactly. It makes no sense...but that's exactly what the "local control" demagogues are proposing.
The unfortunate reality is that "local control" has done a fair bit of harm in this country. It was "local control" that allowed the establishment of Jim Crow - and for that matter, it was "local control" (aka "States' Rights") that provided the thin facade of "reason" which was utilized in attempting to retain the institution of slavery in the American south prior to the US Civil War.
Today, "local control" is often invoked to allow states to outlaw abortion, engage in religions indoctrination in public schools, or avoid pushing the federal government to legalize medical cannabis.
All my neighbors are incorruptible. Yours, however, are crooks.
What really boggles the mind, though, is this strange notion that somehow a federal government is evil and ominous, but a state or municipal government isn't. This is sheer snake oil, and of the worst kind...because it contains as an essential ingredient the lie that corrupt individuals seeking power in government only end up governing at the federal level. This is not just absurd and demonstrably untrue, it gives a dangerous sense of complacency with regards to the corruptibility of local and state officials.
Yes, there is something to be said for decision-makers and authors of law to come from a geographically diverse and representative cross-section of the country. There is also something to be said for avoiding concentrations of power in the hands of a central government.
But the people who make this argument seem to entirely overlook the benefits of broad standardization. Consider your electrical outlets - if you've traveled outside the US, you know that our familiar three-pronged construction is not universal outside this country. Fact is, not even the voltage and frequency of electricity flowing through power lines is standardized between nations.
Now just imagine that every time you traveled from Manhattan to Jersey City, you had to carry a different power cord. Imagine you had to carry a different power supply simply to take a cell phone charger across a state line with you. That is what happens when you follow a radical "local control" system to its logical end.
Inconsistency breeds inefficiency
The assertion that "courts should come from your county, state, or city government" makes little sense to me. If there is no unification of law across various political boundaries, why are we a confederated nation of states in the first place? Under that thinking, the US is really no more than a beta version of the EU - an economic union without the necessary consistency of fiscal and legal policy and mechanisms across multiple states to make it work.
Consider if this thinking was applied to other broadly standardized institutions - for instance, the national electrical grid. As you can see in the attached illustration - and you already know if you travel internationally - the global electric system is not standardized. If you want to take your US laptop to Europe, you need a converter that both allows for the different physical configuration of wall plugs as well as the differences in voltage and frequency.
Now just imagine if you had to do that every time you crossed a state line.
And let's get real here - if "local control" was really what people wanted, a guy like Warren Jeffs would be walking free and the laws that govern him and the ten thousand or so followers he put together would allow him to do so. Nevermind that my values and your values oppose his behavior - his values and the values of his community don't. Under truly local control, that would be the only relevant factor in considering his prosecution.
The same is true for the (former) Mormon practice of polygamy. If "local control" were truly the order of the day, polygamous marriage would be legal in Utah. Personally, I have no problem with that concept...but a lot of people do. It's often dragged out with incest and dog-marrying as an argument against gay marriage.
So with that in mind, I think it's fair to say this:
We don't want "local control." We want personal control. We want to be able to tell other people, "you must do things my way," but we don't want other people to get together and tell us that we must do things their way.
The Golden Mean
As usual, neither extreme provides an optimal solution. The American model is an excellent theory, and does indeed address to some degree the inherent difficulty in balancing power between people, corporations, and government.
However, the current situation in the US is one of patchwork and contradictory legislation that does far more harm than good. This is a direct result of our strange obsession with local control, and our failure to recognize that there are many issues that could be addressed more efficiently and effectively from a central authority.
1 Jefferson, et. al. (n.d.). United States Constitution, Article IV Section 1. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/...
2 Adam Liptak. (2004, March 17). Bans on Interracial Unions Offer Perspective on Gay Ones. The New York Times. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/...
The "Big Lies: Free Market Economics" series on the LowGenius Network:
Big Lies: Free Market Economics (main video/transcript) at LowGenius.Net
Big Lies: What If We Privatized Everything? at PoliticusUSA.Com
Big Lies: Charity Can Sustain Social Welfare If Taxes Are Lower at ProgressiveMuckraker.Com
Big Lies: Strong Federal Government Is Always Bad at DailyKOS
John Henry is a political, social, and media analyst at LowGenius.Net