|
There is a wide spectrum of possible governments between anarchy and totalitarianism, as you know. The United States functioned well enough when our federal government had fewer regulatory agencies, in my opinion. The question always present in my mind on this issue is whether we, as a country, need the federal government setting standards and regulating functions that could be handled at the state or local level. I believe in the political principle of subsidarity, of letting the lowest level possible take care of problems. Many social areas now regulated at the federal level, e.g., health, education, and welfare, are actually administered at the state and local level, anyway, but the federal agencies which take the federal tax money and then disburse it to the states and localities cost an enormous amount to run, in and of themselves, and, IMO, don't add anything equivalent to what they take. Health, education and welfare have always been state and local functions, until the mid 20th century, and were certainly understood to be so when the Constitution was adopted. |
