This thread was inspired by, if not necessarily directed at, ivylass’s post in the Hillary Clinton Pit thread:
I’ve always been interested in this point of view, because it seems as though it could be fairly held for one of two broad yet completely divergent reasons:
-
We should eliminate certain federal regulatory programs and turn the administration of those areas over to the states because a) the states will do a better/more efficient job of regulating, or b) because the states will do at least an equivalent job and, in the spirit of smaller centralized government, we should only let the federal goverment do what the states cannot.
-
We should eliminate certain federal regulatory programs and turn the administration of those areas over to the states because the states will do a worse/less efficient job of regulating and, in the spirit of smaller government (centralized or non-), we should let private individuals and industry operate freely to the greatest extent possible.
These strike me as fundamentally different arguments. It also seems to me, although I may be wrong, that people sometimes couch their beliefs as argument #1 (let the states do it!) when what they actually believe is closer to argument #2 (the states don’t have the power/resources/inclination to do it!).
So I guess I’m curious about this dichotomy, and would like to hear a little from people who think the federal government is too big (and, of course, everyone else, once the discussion is joined). Of the arguments above, which best characterizes your view? Do you think the two are mutually exclusive? If you agree that “we should eliminate the Department of Education and turn the regulation of education over to the states,” to what extent is “we should just eliminate the Department of Education” a second-best alternative?
I’m asking, I think, because while I strongly believe in the need for certain kinds of regulation, I’m indifferent as to the level of government, be it federal, state, or local, that actually does the regulating - except insofar as there’s often, although not always, value in uniformity (every locality possessing a similar regulatory “floor”), and except that the states today do seem to lack the resources/authority/etc. I understand the argument that states would have more resources and so on were the federal government to relinquish control, and that’s fine and dandy. But I rankle at the idea of eliminating federal regulation with nothing effectively taking its place. So I guess I’m in the 1(a) school, and I’m sympathetic to the 1(b) (or states’ rights for states’ rights’ sake) school. I’d like to know how other people feel.