Levels of Government

Published 2006-11-07 at 19:02:52Z under current-events, homepage, st-louis
[rock-stack]

When you think of the word "government", what government do you think of? US
federal government? Your state's government? County? City?

I'm a big fan of self-governance. When people get together and decide that they
want their government to do something, they frequently skim over the definition
of "government" without even thinking. Getting their measure passed by any of
these governments will have roughly the same effect for their local community.
Why is it that people automatically think "state" or "federal" when
"government" comes into the picture?

The only reason something needs to be done at the state level is when it's
really necessary that the measure be implemented state-wide. There are
frequently good reasons to do this, especially when localities might implement
things differently. While "ignorance of the law is no excuse," you have to
balance that with the needs of your community and the goals and side effects of
your legislation. Sometimes it makes sense to keep things homogenized across
the state (or country).

But frequently that's not the case. Consider potential Missouri legislation
that would make a failure to wear a seatbelt while driving a primary offense, a
measure that has failed every year for the last 5 years:

    "It's a tough issue especially with the rural legislators," said Rep. Neal
    St. Onge, R-Ellisville, who is chairman of the House Transportation
    Committee and a supporter of a tougher law. "They see it as a freedom
    issue."

If I understand the issue, this measure is supported in urban areas, but
opposed in rural areas. How much of the law's goals would be satisfied by
making it apply only to the urban areas? Is it really such a bad thing if the
rural areas aren't subject to the same restrictions? This is an example of
legislation being attempted at the wrong level of government. If the measure
fails, people say, "Oh well, better luck next year."

How about we try and change things at home first before trying to force it on
everyone in the state?

This issue is especially important at the federal level. Some people don't even
think "state" when someone says "government", they go right for Washington,
D.C. And with the federal government's willingness to expand its powers at the
drop of a hat, states and localities become progressively weaker and weaker in
their abilities to do anything useful at the local level. Fewer dollars in
taxes come from citizens anymore, and more dollars come back down from taxes
imposed by the federal government. This is compounded by the federal
government's willingness to withhold these funds unless localities comply with
federal guidelines—things that courts have said the federal government can't
legislate, but can influence funding decisions (which seems different in
theory, but not really in practice).

In reality there are actually very few things that the federal government
really needs to deal with. States and localities are largely free to legislate
whatever they want, provided it's constitutional and hasn't already been done
at the federal level yet. So why do we seem so eager to skip our local
governments and go straight to the top? Two reasons:

Intolerance

Within a community, it's usually easy to get consensus about certain things.
Even within a county, there's a good chance that a lot of other people think
the way you do. At this point we start to draw a line. As W said, "Either
you're with us, or you're against us." Your goal has now turned away from
setting a standard in your community that people are largely OK with. Now
you're trying to force your morals/standards/beliefs on to other communities,
because you believe your way is the right way, and you want to convert others
to your ways.

Is this really a bad thing, though? If you have a lot of evidence on your side,
what's wrong with trying?

Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. What is your real agenda? Is it about saving
lives? Do the statistics back that up? If so, do they back it up in the context
of not only your community, but in all of the communities you're pushing to
make this a standard in? What about the consequences? There may be none in your
community, but what about all of the others?

Or is your real agenda something a little more sinister? Are you trying to push
for a law because of your religious beliefs? Morals? Is it appropriate to push
for a law based on religious beliefs onto people that do not share your
religious beliefs?

Power

The other reason people like to do things at all levels of government is one of
power. When you put someone in power, they aren't going to pass up the
opportunity to give themselves more power. This tendency manifests itself as a
large, central, federal government. Even though the federal government was
intended only to keep things running smoothly between states, it's now so
pervasive that people identify themselves as subject to the federal government
before their local governments. People don't get elected by refusing to take on
work. People get elected for "making a difference" and "getting things done",
even if they have no business making that difference or getting that thing done
at that level of government.

Look at all of the huge programs that the federal government puts into action,
and ask yourself whether your community could do a better job accomplishing the
same goal if all of the tax money you send to the federal government were sent
to your locality instead.

(Photo by AZAdam.)

π
© 2002-2006 David Nesting. Some rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
(For spam harvesters and poorly behaved spiders: poisoned addresses)