Big Little Governments

Many actions which would be unthinkable to the federal government are routinely performed by local governments. If Congress passed a law limiting the number of new businesses that could be started each year, or requiring every house to occupy a two-acre lot, or banning coin-operated games, the result would be an avalanche of protest. Yet local governments commonly engage in actions like these.

This is not to imply that local governments are worse overall than the federal government. What it does show is the existence of a division of labor between the federal and local governments. The federal government devotes its attention, where possible, to activities that affect the whole nation or large parts of it; local governments concentrate on the activities of such smaller units as individuals, households, and local businesses. This is a proper and effective division when the work being done by the governments is legitimate; but when governments fail to respect individual rights, it puts local governments into a position where they can exercise more detailed (though generally less massive) control over people’s activities than the federal government can achieve.

The typical issue that faces a local government is not one that will affect millions of cases, but one that deals with a single event—what to do about Second Street, whether to build a new library. And in dealing with such a localized issue, people will be more inclined to exercise their immediate preference and disregard broad principles than they might be if they were debating a question of national importance.

To take an example I know of personally, a small New Hampshire town was recently involved in a debate over whether to amend the town’s law regarding housing developments. The side that favored the amendment offered exactly the same argument as the side that opposed it; each side tried to assure the voters that its plan would do the better job of keeping real estate developers out of town. One side might have consisted of conservatives who believed, in national issues, that the government should not tell people how to use their property. The other side might have been liberals who would rebel at any federal policy smacking of discrimination against the poor. But in this debate, each side gave thought only to keeping “undesirables” from moving in.

Local governments are often much more “informal” than the federal government, and local leaders frequently put this informality to good use. I have seen the mayor of a large city and a town meeting moderator each selectively enforce the rules on closing debate on the basis of the outcome he wished to achieve. Compare this sort of free-wheeling manipulation to the strict observance of cloture rules that characterizes important debates in Congress.

Ironically, today’s abuses by municipal governments stem at ]east in part from sincere attempts to limit governmental power. Traditionally, advocates of limited government have tried to keep power from being abused by confining it to the local level. To a certain extent, this approach is valid, even in a day when news from Washington travels at the speed of light. It’s certainly easier to talk to local officials and try to change their minds than it is to influence Congress. The same can be said of appealing to local voters in comparison with making a dent in a national election. But if we forget that limiting government is the reason for keeping power close to home, the slogans of “local control” and “home rule” raise a danger of their own.

We can hope that local governments will refrain from restricting freedom where the state and federal governments would show no hesitation. But it is also possible that a local government will get carried away on a particular issue and impose controls that people elsewhere will regard as unjust. If a state or federal government attempts to restrict the municipal authorities’ il legitimate activities, it would be a serious mistake to defend those activities in the name of “home rule” or “local rights.” Yet “rights” of this sort are often invoked, particularly in opposition to restrictions on tax rates.

We have to remember that rights as a moral concept apply to individuals, not to governments. Issues that pit one level of government against another should always be judged not by asking which side is violating the other’s rights, but by asking which side is violating the rights of indi viduals.

In saying so much about the perils of “little governments,” I should make it clear that I am not claiming that local governments are worse offenders overall than the federal government. (A look at the federal withholding tax on your paycheck stub can make anything the local authorities might do seem insignificant by comparison.) Rather, my points are these: that size alone is not the criterion of improper governmental activity, that each level of government has its own distinctive potential for diminishing freedom, and that the tactic of upholding the rights of the lower levels of government as a defense against the higher levels is an error that leads the debate away from the rights of the individual.

In addition, I would like to make one positive point: it remains true that one person can fight City Hall much more easily than he can fight the Capitol. Defending the principles of freedom in a local debate offers much more of a chance of affecting the outcome than defending them in a national contest does. Not only does this opportunity provide the psychological satisfaction of seeing results, it allows these results to set precedents for further successes on a wider scale. Today, we can answer the claim that no city could survive without zoning laws simply by pointing at Houston. Future local successes would similarly serve as demonstrations that the principles of freedom do work.

Let’s not forget about the fight against “big government.” But if, at the same time, we can work on limiting the powers of “big little governments,” we will greatly increase the long-term hopes of freedom.