Individual Liberty and Local Government

I have searched for a term to describe my political ideology and have come to use the term "minarchist" as the best descriptor. According to Wikipedia, minarchism is the belief that the only proper role of government is to protect individuals from aggression. I would classify my beliefs to be generally consistent with this view; however, like some minarchists, I do believe that there is a proper role for government to deliver some additional services and infrastructure beyond merely a system of laws and defense. For more on this, please read my previous article on government spending - "To Spend of Not To Spend".

I bring this subject up tonight for a few reasons. First, I think philosophical essays like this are interesting and I hope you do too. I do not write these frequently enough (lately, I feel like I haven't been writing enough of anything). Second, the State of Indiana is currently in the midst of significant debate on the subject of local government reform - more on that later. Finally, in a time where government control continues to grow, and Barack Obama makes statements such as "[t]he question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works", I think it is important to get other points of view out there devoid of partisan rhetoric.

You may be surprised to hear me say that government, or more precisely the concept of governance, is not all bad. In fact, I believe it to be natural and fundamental to human life. Governance can be thought of as a method or system which regulates decision-making. I think of government as an entity which is established to provide governance to an individual or group of individuals. From this perspective, I think it can be appreciated that self-governance is naturally the most efficient and natural form of governance. It is the individual who knows what is best for the individual, and we should not underestimate the individual's ability to recognize and value the need for other individuals.

This is clearly evident in the family unit. I believe that the family unit is a natural extension of the individual. It is not uncommon for anyone to recognize the ability for an individual to value the needs and serve the interests of other members of the family unit. I think it is difficult even for the most hardcore communist to disagree with this fact. And, think about it, there is an implicit structure of governance - a government, if you will - in most households or family units. However, no matter how strong the governance or how much power resides in the head of the household for decision making, it is still the individual who has the greatest authority over oneself. I believe this is even true for young children.

For me, the next logical extension is the community. This is a bit of a nebulous term, but I believe it most accurately describes the next natural layer of governance. The family unit cedes some regulatory authority - often for the purpose of protection or even the "common good" - to the community. I think it is important for this to be a nebulous concept because this is the first significant threat to the destruction of individual liberty (although, there are legitimate arguments that this begins with the family unit). It is my view that a community is best defined as being a bigger family - where there is a strong and consistent commitment to the common good. Also, it is a concept which is independent of geo-political constructs for most people. Consider living in a hypothetical neighborhood where the U.S.-Canadian border divides residents. Who would you feel is more a member of your community... someone from the Canadian side of the neighborhood or someone in Alabama?

This naturally leaves us with the state and its many layers of structured governance, or, more commonly, government. The state ranges from municipalities and towns to states, provinces, nations, and even the United Nations. Generally, authorities in the state are strangers to the individual and, arguably, not members of the same community. It is for this reason that it is least natural for an individual to cede governance to the state. The state aims to model itself after the community to gain authority, but this is and always will be a failure in practice in that it will diminish individual liberty. No matter how much we hope and believe, neither the world nor any state can be one community. For proof, please revisit the hypothetical example above.

So, I'd like to introduce my pyramid of governance:

Now, to the practical section of this essay based upon the philosophy. The State of Indiana conducted a research effort led by former Lt. Governor Joe Kernan and Chief Justice Randall Shepard. The report, known as the Kernan-Shepard report, provides recommendations to streamline Indiana local government. This is a good thing. However, I find myself struggling with one aspect of the consequences. It seems to be that this will serve to consolidate more power at higher levels of government - in particular, the State of Indiana and its county governments. Indiana has a complex and inefficient system of local government which needs reform.

The dilemma is simple. Would I prefer fewer layers of government with power concentrated at higher levels of the state? Or would I prefer the existing system of complexity and higher costs to the taxpayer? Personally, I'd like to see a system which consolidates more power in lower levels of the state, something closer to the communities, where the power of the purse (and thus the potential for tyranny) is more locally accountable.