Big Little Governments; G. McGarth

Gary McGath BIG Little Governments COMPLAINTS about "big govern ment" are commonplace. And it is a genuine evil, if we take the term to mean government that has grown beyond its legitimate function of stopping force and fraud. But the sheer size of a government is a poor measure of how good or bad it is. The British colonial government in 1776, for example, wasn't unusually big for governments of the time but it certainly was oppressive. In watching for governmental activi ties that take away our freedoms, we should avoid being misled by a phrase; we should watch out for the abuses not only of the "big" federal government, but of "little" govern ments as well-that is local govern ments. Many actions which would be unMr. McGath is a computer programmer and freelance writer in Hollis, New Hampshire. 344 thinkable 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 oc cupy 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 gov ernments 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 govern ment devotes its attention, where possible, to activities that affect the whole nation or large parts of it; lo cal governments concentrate on the activities of such smaller units as individuals, households, and local BIG LITTLE GOVERNMENTS 345 businesses. This is a proper and ef fective division when the work being done by the governments is legiti mate; but when governments fail to respect individual rights, it puts lo cal governments into a position where they can exercise more de tailed (though generally less mas sive) control over people's activities than the federal government can achieve. The typical issue that faces a local government is not one that will af fect 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 per sonally, a small New Hampshire town was recently involved in a de bate over whether to amend the town's law regarding housing devel opments. The side that favored the amendment offered exactly the same argument as the side that opposed it; each side tried to assure the vot ers that its plan would do the better job of keeping real estate developers out of town. One side might have consisted of conservatives who be lieved, 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 fre quently put thi$ informality to good use. I have seeJi 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. Com pare this sort of free-wheeling ma nipulation to the strict observance of cloture rules that characterizes important debates in Congress.

Ironically, today's abuses by mu nicipal governments stem at least in part from sinc~re attempts to limit governmental power. Traditionally, advocates of l!imited government have tried to keep power from being abused by confining it to the local level. To a certain extent, this ap proach 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 in fluence 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 gQvernment is the rea son for keeping'power close to home, 346 THE FREEMAN the slogans of "local control" and "home rule" raise a danger of their own. We can hope that local govern ments will. refrain from restricting freedom where the state and federal governments would show no hesita tion. But it is also possible that a local government will get carried away on a particular issue and im pose controls that people elsewhere will regard as unjust. If a state or federal government attempts to re strict the municipal authorities' il legitimate activities, it would be a serious mistake to defend those ac tivities 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 indi vid uals, 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 of fenders overall than the federal gov ernment. (A look at the federal withholding tax on your paycheck stub can make anything the local authorities might do seem insignifi cant by comparison.) Rather, my points are these: that size alone is not the criterion of improper gov ernmental activity, that each level of government has its own distinc tive potential for diminishing free dom, and that the tactic of uphold ing 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 princi ples of freedom in a local debate of fers much more of a chance of affect ing 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 lim iting the powers of "big little gov ernments," we will greatly increase the long-term hopes of freedom. ® Gary North Cut-Throat Oppo~nities "Cut-throat competition!" I suppose that when most people hear this phrase, they think of the bankrupt-· ing of some company. Whenever a "going out of business" sign appears in the window of a local store, some people may feel that the community has lost an important asset. The downtown district of almost any city is marked by empty storefronts. The consumer may think to himself, "Stores downtown are the victims of cut-throat competition. Something ought to be done about it."