An Unheard Debate

I often find political discussions to be immensely tiresome and confusing. I do not know enough about any issue to reach any conclusion about anything. I do not know the best answer to any of the divisive questions of how society ought to be governed. Seemingly intelligent and reasonable people make compelling cases for opposite things, and it is rarely obvious who is right. Perhaps if I spent a long time researching the facts, I could discover the correct positions on all the controversial issues, but how would that help anyone? My vote is not worth more than anyone else’s, and trying to convince other people, particularly those inclined to disagree, of what I have learned would be at least as difficult as learning it in the first place. I do not care about any political issue enough to spend so much time and effort convincing people. However, there is one important thing which seems so obvious that it seems like I should be able convince people of it by just pointing out some simple and uncontroversial facts

First, consider that all of the other relatively free and prosperous countries in the world, whether it is Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, or the countries of western and northern Europe, are much smaller than the United States. Some of those countries have large populations, such as Japan with more than a third of that of the United States, but many others have far smaller populations, which are often comparable to those of single states in the United States. For example, Sweden has a population and GDP similar to those of Michigan. There are also countries which are smaller than any of the states in the United States, such as Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra, Iceland, Monaco, and San Marino. These are all sovereign states with their own laws and governmental institutions which are administered primarily by their own people and for their people, not by foreign governments or international organizations.

By itself, this fact should not raise any questions. The United States of America is one of many countries and just happens to be one of the largest. However, there is another relevant fact which is nearly always ignored despite not being any kind of secret. This fact is the text of the tenth amendment of the United States constitution, which is “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 meaning of these words seems quite clear and it seems to say that nearly all the federal laws, programs, and agencies created in the past hundred years are unconstitutional. That is not necessarily a problem. The constitution is not perfect. It was not written by perfect people who knew exactly how to create the perfect government for all time. The constitution of the United States is not a divine dictate which ought to be obeyed while ignoring all other concerns, especially when the present is so different from the time when it was written. People should not be restrained from solving the problems of today by the words of people in the past who did not face or foresee these problems.

However, when considering the tenth amendment in addition to the fact that every other developed country is much smaller than the United States, one should seriously ask why the powers not delegated to the federal government should not be reserved to the states. Why should the federal government do anything which the constitution does not permit it to do when state governments exist? Indeed, why should the federal government do anything a state government can do, even if the constitution allows it? Even if the constitution undeniably allowed everything the federal government does right now, why is it better that that one government has so much power in so many areas over so many people? Why would it be worse if each state in the United States had its own laws, taxes, prohibitions, regulations, and government services, all decided by the government of that state and only for the people of that state, while the federal government were only involved in defense? When considering the fact that twenty-eight of the fifty states have higher populations today than the entire United States had in 1790, it does not seem unreasonable to say that, if the constitution is obsolete, the problem is that it was not made for such a huge country. Indeed, I can think of so many seemingly obvious reasons why it is bad that one government attempts to represent so many diverse and conflicting interests by imposing one-size-fits-all policies on the entire massive country, that I believe this is the root cause of many of the problems in the United States.

The benefits of decentralization and problems of centralization seem rather obvious. Individual people have a greater influence over a government which represents a smaller population, while only the wealthy and well-connected elite have any significant influence over a government which tries to represent hundreds of millions of people across the continent. A government whose congressmen are each supposed to represent more than 750,000 people cannot be meaningfully democratic. A smaller population has proportionally less wealth, so the government might be more reluctant to waste it, especially when the politicians need to tax it from their neighbors. A government which rules a small population in a small area can create policies specifically suited for that place and those people. If a government’s policies are intolerable, it will be easier for people to leave the territory if they do not need to travel far. Indeed, I could point to the actions of the federal government of the United States in the past hundred and fifty years to show what a disaster centralization has been and continues to be, whether it is the war on drugs, corporate welfare, the nearly 30 trillion-dollar debt, or the many disastrous military actions. My opinion is further strengthened when I hear people advocating for certain government policies by pointing out that other countries have implemented those policies and have better outcomes than the United States in many areas.

Considering all this, why would anyone oppose decentralization or favor more centralization? These benefits may not be so great as I imagine, but the fact that every other developed country is smaller than the United States shows that it is possible for a decentralized United States to function well enough. Anyone who disagrees should be careful when pointing to other countries’ government policies as examples which ought to be emulated by the United States. Obviously, there would be many practical challenges to ending every federal policy which could be done by state governments instead, even if everyone agreed that such a thing should be done, but why wouldn’t everyone agree if presented with such a proposal?

The obvious reason is that people believe their favored policies are the best, or else they would not favor them, and as many people as possible should benefit from those best policies. All political debates are partly moral debates and morality is universal if it means anything. If something is right, it is right for all people in all places. Additionally, most people view governments as the institution whose purpose is to ensure justice and the common good, so those who want justice and common good for all the people of the United States would want their preferred policies implemented by the federal government. This does not follow. Morality may be universal, but pursuing it is an entirely practical matter, and one government imposing one-size fits-all one diverse people and places is not necessarily the best way to do that. Moreover, no government by imperfect humans will ever be perfectly just, especially not when there is, and will always be, so much disagreement on what justice is. Any political faction’s attempt to take control of the federal government and govern the entire diverse and divided country in accordance with their particular view of what is right is a utopian project which will never truly succeed but will only result in the maintenance of the elite class or the establishment of a different one. Would it be so much worse if, instead, there were nothing more than a minimal federal government and those who work towards political change would primarily do so for the states they live in?

If there is enough public support get the federal government to pursue a particular agenda, then many state governments will pursue similar agendas with that same public support. If a minority of states do not adopt policies in accordance with a certain view of justice, that should not be worse, from the point of view of someone who holds that view, than a foreign country not adopting those policies. If it is better that all the diverse people of the United States are ruled by one government, then why wouldn’t it be best if all the people on Earth were ruled by one government? If, instead, it is tolerable that independent and sovereign countries have their own laws, why isn’t the same true of the states of the United States? Some may say that countries have their particular values, and the particular values of the United States of America ought to be preserved and promoted, and states and localities in the United States should not be allowed to have policies contrary to these, but people clearly disagree about what those values are and how they should be translated into policy. No matter what someone believes the true and correct American values are, he will need to either admit that the fact that people disagree means the entire United States is not characterized by that set of values, just as other countries are not, or that those people are not truly part of the United States and there should not be such a powerful federal government which rules them and the rest of the country and which they have a say in.

The only reason why someone would be deeply committed to maintaining or expanding the power of the federal government is if he is arrogant enough to believe he knows how to help everyone in the world and believes he or the political faction he supports deserve to have as much power over as many people as possible. Such a belief is not simply a well-intentioned difference in political opinion, but rather, it is a desire to dominate and I cannot see how such a delusion is anything other than a kind of extremism. There are certain ideas, such as fascism; communism; or racism, which nearly everyone rightly rejects and which many rightly or wrongly accuse their political opponents of promoting. While this demonization of one’s opponents is often excessive and misdirected, there are certainly opinions which are so wrong and nonsensical that they do not need to be respected. Why shouldn’t imperialism, the belief that one government ought to have more power over more people and places, be met with that same kind of scorn and hatred as fascism, communism, or racism? There may be some problems which can only be solved by the federal government of the United States, but that should never be presumed. Anyone who proposes federal policy should have to prove that that the problems he wants solved cannot be addressed by state and local governments or else be denounced as an imperialist.

If I am right, then anyone who opposes the political and corporate establishment and is also not a utopian imperialist, but instead tolerates diversity and knows that a perfect world cannot be created, should favor decentralization. However, if I am going to make such a strong assertion and attack those who disagree, I would want to be certain that I am right.

I have described the thought process by which I reached this conclusion as well as address the various issues and implications of thereof in an excessively long and poorly organized document, which no one wants to read:

TheRealProblem.pdf - Google Drive

When I began to think about how to convey this message in something shorter, I realized what the reason why I wrote something so long is. The things I wrote seem so obviously true, that the fact that only a small, but possibly increasing, number of people are saying something similar makes me wonder what I am missing. I try not to be so arrogant as to believe that I have realized something nearly everyone else has not. It could be that most people have already considered this idea and rejected it because it is so obviously incorrect, and I am just too ignorant to realize it. I wrote so much because I hoped that, by humbly explaining my entire thought process, the nonexistent readers would be able to find what is true and useful in my ideas even if I am mostly wrong. In this attempt to write something shorter, I am asking as much as telling. Why is the centralization of government a good thing? Why can’t different places and different people have different government policies? Why aren’t more people asking these questions?

Those who say what I am saying do not seem to share my confusion and outrage at the fact that more people are not discussing this idea, nor do they share my thought that this might be the one idea most reasonable and well-intentioned people could agree on. If what I have written is correct, however, then decentralization might be the only political issue worth discussing on a federal level. As we all know, many people are dogmatic and tribalistic about their political opinions and will reject the people and ideas opposed to the ones they favor, but, while someone might have strongly set beliefs about what the best government policy is, I have not noticed that anyone strongly believes that his favored policies absolutely must be enacted by the federal government of the United States as opposed to the state governments. It is simply presumed that all policy being discussed is federal policy, unless specified otherwise. The question of what kinds of government policy ought to be reserved to the states is not even debated, and for that reason, I do not expect people to have any strongly held opinion on such a question. Is decentralization right-wing or left-wing? Which political party favors it? It seems that none of them do, but none explicitly oppose it in their messaging.

So again, I wonder why more people are not saying the same thing as I am. Why don’t the people, who say they love the constitution and emphasize the importance of the first and second amendments, also proclaim the importance of the tenth amendment? Why don’t those, who point to other countries’ government policies as examples which ought to be emulated in the United States, also consider the size of those countries? Why don’t those, who say they care about democracy and equality, want to take away power from the government over which the common person has no influence? Why aren’t federal candidates forced to explain why their policy proposals are not better for state governments? Why don’t people, who disagree about what the best government policy is, work together to reduce federal power while they also fight over their state and local governments? Surely the number of people who can tolerate different places having different policies is greater than the number of people who want the hundreds of millions of people of the United States to continue to fight over the federal government in the hope that their side will win and create the perfect regime for the entire county? What I have written here seems like the most obvious, nonpartisan, nonideological, and uncontroversial thing anyone can say. Indeed, when I have tried making this argument to people, no one strongly disagreed, but no one really agreed either. No one has told me anything which changes my opinion. Can someone please tell me that I am wrong so that I can stop thinking about this?