Posted by
Andrews on Friday, April 25, 2008 8:03:55 PM
How much better the world would be if everyone could just admit one simple thing, that they might be wrong.
Think about all the harm which is done in the world, and think of how much is because people are convinced that they are right. The government wants to control prices, or regulate industry, or manage health care, all because the politicians are convinced they know best. Busybodies in public interest groups want to control what foods you can eat or how much you can smoke or what light bulbs you can use because they are convinced they are right. Everywhere someone is convinced that they are right, that they know best, and as a result everyone should be forced to listen to them.
What would happen if, for just a short while, we all admitted that perhaps we could be wrong?
We have an answer. It is the Constitution.
The principle behind all of our documents is this sort of humility, the realization that other people may know something that the framers did now. Why did they protect speech? Because the state may try to ban an unpopular idea, which later proves right. Why enact freedom of religion? Because perhaps the framers were wrong and the one true faith is something else. Why limit the power of the government? Because those in public office are as fallible as anyone else.
Humility is why I embrace federalism.
You see, I think I know what is the ideal form of government. It is something close to the generic libertarian ideal, a minimal "night watchman" state. But I also realize that I can be wrong. Maybe legalizing drugs will do more harm than good. Perhaps the state should be more involved in preventative public health measures than I believe. Maybe even some sorts of regulation are actually beneficial. I don't think it likely, but I could be wrong.
So, what is the answer?
Simple. Let the states decide. Even better, let the localities decide. Limit the power to as small an area as possible. Let the federal government handle the military, foreign diplomacy, interstate civil disputes, and that's it. Everything else should be handled by the states, or even by the counties and cities and towns. Set up as many possible tiny governments as possible.
What does this have to with humility? Everything. By having fifty state governments with fifty different approaches to any given problem, we can see who is right and who is wrong. Or, maybe we will see that there is no right approach and many different ideas work equally well. Or maybe some approaches work for one group and other approaches work for another. By splitting up the solution, we admit that no one will have all the answers. Instead, each state can try their own way, and, if that doesn't work, turn to their neighbors for alternate solutions. The answers that fit best will slowly spread to other regions, those that fail will slowly fade away.
In short, by admitting that no one government will get everything right, we open the door to many competing solutions, allowing each government to try whatever they think best, but also adopt the policies of neighbors when they cannot solve a problem on their own.
But, so long as we believe that a single central federal system has all the answers, and as long as politicians continue in their conceit that one, solitary legislative body will eventually develop the optimal solution, we will not see these benefits. We will continue to have a single, monolithic solution, for better or worse.