Chapter 8: Keep Power As Close to the Ground as Possible

I live in a small city in Massachusetts, and I’m relatively aware of the issues that the town faces. I know that the cost of real estate in the town has made it difficult for new families to purchase houses. And yet, many residents do not want large development projects since this will increase already bad traffic and congestion. A few years ago, there was a battle over the construction of a new public high school, which many residents thought overpriced. The overruns eventually cost the mayor his position. There is an ongoing issue of renovating older schools and bringing them into the modern age and the cost associated with these projects. 

If I lived a few towns over, or in another state the issues might be entirely different.

If knowledge is the key to making good decisions, then those closest to the knowledge are able to form the best hypothesis, structure the adequate tests, and eventually come to the best decisions about which path to take. I have no idea what the issues are in downtown Chicago, or Lubbock or even Stoughtoun, MA, another town ten minutes from where live. The same can be said at the state level. The people in Massachusetts have different knowledge than those in California or North Dakota. 

The United States Constitution gives certain powers to the Federal Government that fall into three categories:

• Delegated powers. These are explicitly stated in Article I, Section 8. These include the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office. In all, the Constitution delegates 27 powers specifically to the federal government.

• Implied powers. These  are not specifically enumerated but which can be inferred from Article I, Section 8. The Federal Government is empowered "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and other powers vested in the government of the United States." 

• Inherent powers. Although not specifically stated, they grow out of the nature of running a vast country. For example, the power to acquire territory, or the power to mint money and use it to pay the country’s obligations. 

Implied and inherent powers are a gray area which have caused ongoing conflict in the United States as various interests battle over whether federal or state regulations should win the day on issues like environmental regulations, abortion, gun control. Ascendance provides a framework for resolving these issues and determining which jurisdiction is best suited to regulate and resolve these issues.

As I stated before, those closest to the problem are best equipped to understand, test, and resolve that problem. Thus, local and regional issues should be resolved at a local or regional level. The following process is helpful for thinking through which level of government should take the lead.

First, the problem needs to be identified. A person in Rhode Island may think differently about protecting lakes and streams than a person in Montana. There is no reason to force one region’s thinking upon another. The person in Rhode Island has no insight into Montana.

Second, those impacted must have the ability to collect the knowledge necessary to resolve the problem. The Rhode Islander understands the climate, the topography, and other issues which may play into the pollution of lakes and streams. Perhaps there is local industry which contributes to the environmental harm. The same is true of the person in Montana. A one size fits all ruling may help one state while harming the other. Each state should have the ability to resolve its issues independently.

But that’s only if the problem does not harm or impact others. Some environmental issues can be contained to a specific area. Most can’t, though.  A stream may wander across state lines. Or a river might flow through multiple states. In those cases, a body is needed to help coordinate knowledge creation, hypothesis, and solutions. These issues may require a regional solution. Lacking a regional body to help, the federal government may be required to step in and help lead the process. 

Some environmental problems are truly national. Acid rain starts in one part of the country and impacts another. Climate change is another problem which crossed state lines. While these issues can be coordinated federally, many of the solutions may be local. Arizona may have a different solution to acid rain than South Carolina. Texas may have a different solution to climate change than Vermont. Flexibility should be built in to allow those on the ground to determine the best way to solve a particular problem.

In addition, some areas of running a government require scale to be effective. The United States is a superpower because we have an integrated economy with strong federal laws for regulating the economy. A company in George operates by most of the same rules as a company in Alaska. Trade, defense, and scientific research all benefit from a federal, coordinated response. 

Can this framework be applied to other seemingly intractable problems? Yes. Take abortion. It’s been an issue which has split  this nation Each group - pro-life and pro-choice - feels strongly about its positions. There appears to be little room for compromise that will make both sides happy. But abortion is not a federal issue. The decision a woman in Georgia makes does not impact a person in Utah. Those in each state may view the problem very differently and come to very different conclusions about the solutions. In an ideal world, the decision on the legality of abortion would be driven down to the local level, but this is not realistic. Thus, Ascendance would dictate that each state be given the ability to decide whether it wants abortion to be legal or not. The Federal government is too far removed from the on-the-ground feelings to dictate a one-size-fits-all ruling.

Now, I realize there will be several objections to this. If Ascendance says to drive decisions down to the lowest possible level, wouldn’t that be the individual? Shouldn’t individuals get to decide whether they want to have an abortion or not? Ascendance says to drive political decisions down to the lowest possible political level. An individual is not a polity. Thus, while society may decide to grant the individual the choice, it must first be bequeathed by society.

Some may say that in moral issues there can be no compromise, no way to allow others a different decision because it is a moral question. The most common example is slavery. A morally indefensible institution was left to the states because what Virginia did with its slaves was independent of Maryland. This is a false argument. First, because slavery impacted the national economy, it’s impossible to say that states were isolated from the impact of slavery in other states. But more importantly, Ascendance explains the difference. As we’ve discussed, slavery was a clear knowledge destroying institution. There is no ambiguity that slavery destroyed the knowledge creating potential of a living, breathing human being. Abortion is much more ambigious. Is the fetus living? Is it at the point where it can be considered a knowledge creating being? And what about the mother? If she has been raped or the victim of incest and is forced to bear the child, will this destroy her as a knowledge generating individual? Should a woman be forced to carry a child she does not want to? These are difficult questions with no clear answer. Thus, let those with the best knowledge of the mores and behaviors of their local communities make the decisions, test the results, and tweak the rules as necessary.

In general, keep issues local, where knowledge can be most directly applied. But where scale and coordination are required, look to federal support.