The City Council - That Tool of Local OppressionThe Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Church's Tradition teach that in the political order, states ought to follow the principle of subsidiarity in their operations, meaning that "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" (CCC 1883, Centessimus Anno 48:4, Quadrigesimo Anno I). An American version of this ideal can be found in our own Tenth Amendment, the so-called "Reserved Powers Clause," which states that:
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.
I started thinking about these things in the context of a lot of the complains going up these days about the excessive size of the federal government. There are many persons from various camps (Distributists, Tea Party affiliates, libertarians) decrying encroachment of federal power into issues that ought to be handled by local or state authorities. I think these outcries are well founded. However, I have also noticed a curious tendency to give local governments a pass on burdensome or oppressive behavior when people would have been up in arms had the federal government been the perpetrator.
This has never made sense to me - while no fan of wasteful federal activity, it is true that the local government is what is most immediate and tangible to a person. I might know intellectually that the federal government is wasting my tax money, but with my local government I can physically see it being wasted in the useless construction and landscaping constantly going on in my hometown. If I try to burn leaves in my backyard, it is not the federal government but some city cronies who will show up and demand that I put out the fire. The most oppressive taxes of all (in my opinion) are property taxes and assessments, levied at the local level. If I want to build a new deck on my house, it is the city who comes snooping around to make sure I pay my fee to pull a permit (for the purpose of jacking up my taxes). When you get pulled over, it is usually by city or county police. In almost every case it is local government that has the biggest idaily mpact on our lives, not federal.
That's as it should be, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. But this also means that we should be a lot more focused on what our local governments are doing. This is what I have been doing in the past several years, and I can say that all in all my experience of local government is just as unsavory as that of federal government - granted, the issues are more petty, but they are also more immediate.
Taking into account the Church's idea of subsidiarity, what is the proper relation of persons to their local governments? I am all for subsidiarity, if by it we mean the idea that the city should handle the city's problems before the state or the feds come in. But I certainly do not think that everything the city government undertakes is necessary. You'd better believe that there is just as great a ratio of waste and pork-barrel projects at the local level as at the federal level. Look at the waste and corruption in the City of Detroit., for example.
Granted most municipalities do not approach that level of corruption, but judging by what I have observed in my own community, I would say that most cities are still wasteful beyond reason and burden their people with imposing, unnecessary or just plain stupid ordinances - like the city owned hill down the road from my house which displays a giant "NO SLEDDING" sign all winter for no apparent reason; it's like they ban sledding for no other reason that they know that the public will want to sled there.
Surprisingly to me, many Catholics don't seem to care what the heck their local governments do. Some see all of these things I have been speaking about as legitimate functions of local authority and even as the concrete working out of subsidiarity, as if what is being done is of little consequence as long as the one's doing it are local cronies instead of federal workers. People would throw a fit if the federal government tried to meddle in local affairs, for example, by regulating burning within the city. Yet these same persons willingly acquiesce when the local government imposes regulations on burning. This does not make sense; for me, the issue is not that I oppose the federal government meddling in affairs that should be left to local meddlers - rather, the issue is that I don't want anybody meddling in my affairs, whether federal or local. Like Mel Gibson said in the one memorable line from The Patriot, "Why should I exchange one tyrant living three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants living one mile away?" I'd be rightfully irritated if the federal government tried to regulate the burning of leaves in my driveway, but I am equally infuriated when the local government tries to enforce the same regulation. The fact that it is the local government oppressing me does not make me any happier.
I started thinking about these things in the context of a lot of the complains going up these days about the excessive size of the federal government. There are many persons from various camps (Distributists, Tea Party affiliates, libertarians) decrying encroachment of federal power into issues that ought to be handled by local or state authorities. I think these outcries are well founded. However, I have also noticed a curious tendency to give local governments a pass on burdensome or oppressive behavior when people would have been up in arms had the federal government been the perpetrator.
This has never made sense to me - while no fan of wasteful federal activity, it is true that the local government is what is most immediate and tangible to a person. I might know intellectually that the federal government is wasting my tax money, but with my local government I can physically see it being wasted in the useless construction and landscaping constantly going on in my hometown. If I try to burn leaves in my backyard, it is not the federal government but some city cronies who will show up and demand that I put out the fire. The most oppressive taxes of all (in my opinion) are property taxes and assessments, levied at the local level. If I want to build a new deck on my house, it is the city who comes snooping around to make sure I pay my fee to pull a permit (for the purpose of jacking up my taxes). When you get pulled over, it is usually by city or county police. In almost every case it is local government that has the biggest idaily mpact on our lives, not federal.
That's as it should be, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. But this also means that we should be a lot more focused on what our local governments are doing. This is what I have been doing in the past several years, and I can say that all in all my experience of local government is just as unsavory as that of federal government - granted, the issues are more petty, but they are also more immediate.
Taking into account the Church's idea of subsidiarity, what is the proper relation of persons to their local governments? I am all for subsidiarity, if by it we mean the idea that the city should handle the city's problems before the state or the feds come in. But I certainly do not think that everything the city government undertakes is necessary. You'd better believe that there is just as great a ratio of waste and pork-barrel projects at the local level as at the federal level. Look at the waste and corruption in the City of Detroit., for example.
Granted most municipalities do not approach that level of corruption, but judging by what I have observed in my own community, I would say that most cities are still wasteful beyond reason and burden their people with imposing, unnecessary or just plain stupid ordinances - like the city owned hill down the road from my house which displays a giant "NO SLEDDING" sign all winter for no apparent reason; it's like they ban sledding for no other reason that they know that the public will want to sled there.
Surprisingly to me, many Catholics don't seem to care what the heck their local governments do. Some see all of these things I have been speaking about as legitimate functions of local authority and even as the concrete working out of subsidiarity, as if what is being done is of little consequence as long as the one's doing it are local cronies instead of federal workers. People would throw a fit if the federal government tried to meddle in local affairs, for example, by regulating burning within the city. Yet these same persons willingly acquiesce when the local government imposes regulations on burning. This does not make sense; for me, the issue is not that I oppose the federal government meddling in affairs that should be left to local meddlers - rather, the issue is that I don't want anybody meddling in my affairs, whether federal or local. Like Mel Gibson said in the one memorable line from The Patriot, "Why should I exchange one tyrant living three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants living one mile away?" I'd be rightfully irritated if the federal government tried to regulate the burning of leaves in my driveway, but I am equally infuriated when the local government tries to enforce the same regulation. The fact that it is the local government oppressing me does not make me any happier.
I don't think the fact that we believe in subsidiarity necessitates embracing local oppressive government regulations. Another irritating case-study: in my town, the local GOP is obviously against "big government" and the attempts of the Democrats to expand entitlement programs. Yet, in the same breath, they consistently call for more police and sheriffs to be hired in my home town and clamoring about "supporting the local law enforcement." The same people that would be horrified at the presence of any FEMA troops are delighted at the presence of a glut of useless sheriffs. The reason I would disapprove of local deployment of FEMA troops has very little to do with the fact that they are FEMA and very much to do with the fact that they are law enforcement. The reason I oppose (in my community) more sheriffs and officers is simply because we don't need any more authority, be it state, local or federal. We already exist with more regulation and law than our Founding Fathers could have ever imagined - I don't want to makes its hand even heavier by putting more police on the roads when we have the lowest crime rate in Southeastern Michigan.
My city also bans bike riding or rollerskating in the downtown district, which I find absurd. Imagine the outrage if the federal government tried to ban bike riding! Yet when the City Council does it, everybody shrugs and says "Oh well!" The city gets a pass for all its absurd and burdensome regulations.
Well, I suppose this has turned into a rant, but I think it is a valuable rant. Just because we acknowledge that local and federal governments should relate to each other on the principle of subsidiarity doesn't mean that everything the city does is just fine while everything the federal government does is an abuse of power. Here's my suggestions for how local authorities ought to view their role:
1) Like federal government, thelocal authorities ought to see their main duty as staying out of the way of their citizens and constituents. This is especially the case in a lot of these overly nitpicky "safety" related issues like riding bikes down the street, burning leaves, etc.
2) The positive goal of city government should be to maintain an atmosphere in which people can live in safety and do business. This means turning away from a model in which they see themselves as needing to provide all kinds of services that make my taxes go up and that I don't want anyway. Just plow the blasted roads, lower property tax to attract business, keep a skeleton crew of six sheriffs and leave most everything else to the people. This obviously would vary depending on the size of the city.
3) Neighborhood associations are the most oppressive of all quasi-governmental entities (I'm calling them this because they "govern" the neighborhood in a way). They are the ones who forbid you from hanging up laundry, working on a car, painting your house or doing anything else deemed too blue collar. These associations should have zero authority.
I'm sure there's more, but I'm too riled up to think clearly. Any comments or suggestions are welcome - how do you out there view your own city governments? Are they efficient and thrifty or corrupt and bloated?
3 comments:
The problem with local government is related to the problem with state and federal government. In our current system, higher levels of government take more than their fair share of everything, including talent. Local governments are largely made up of very stupid people. Stupid people are less likely to be retrained or prudent in their use of power.
Interesting premise..."local governments are largely made up of very stupid people." I'll remember that when I run for Mayor of my town! LOL
Boniface,
It seems to me that you're rightly riled up because your local governments *are* violating subsidiarity.
The family is a more local unit of society than the neighborhood, and the individual is a more local unit than the family.
In other words the most local relevant authority for leaf burning should almost certainly be your family; Unless there was a compelling pollution or fire prevention problem that needed to be handled at a higher level. Similarly, something like choosing to sled down a hill should almost certainly be handled at an *individual* not a city level.
Post a Comment