A Limited Central Government Is Compatible with Community Living

Image via Patch

A limited federal government does not preclude active local governments and close-knit communities.

Many believe that the idea of limited government precludes the idea of collectivism at the smallest roots, and this is not so. There is a way to balance and reconcile these two philosophies. Federalism and collectivism, while different, share very important core factors that help contribute to their overall success.

Federalism is the belief in a limited government, which is especially important given today’s current bloated federal reach. Washington D.C. now has the ability to reach and control every aspect of our lives. However Federalism, which seeks to undo that reach, depends on state and local agencies, which can be more responsive and in-tune with the needs of those served.

Collectivism is a philosophy that depends on the needs and goals of a particular community. The more successful collective communities you will find are smaller communities. If you want a modern day example of a successful collective community, look no further than an Israeli Kibbutz, which are small settlements where people live communally and contribute to their overall community’s success.

Federalism is the only political philosophy that can nurture a collective environment; it depends on strong local and state government to be in tune with the needs of its constituents, instead of a centralized federal government. Both philosophies are similar in that the bigger the government, the more complex and harder it becomes to meet the needs of the population at large.

For instance, the U.S. federal government has become so large and complicated that in order to combat the Y2K bug, a single office existed from the year 2000 until 2017, nearly 18 years later.

The federal government, as it stands right now, will bowl over any community trying to make its own way. From this centralized standpoint, the needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. We currently find ourselves indirectly supporting organizations that we find personally repugnant, and this partly due to the sheer scope of the federal government.

If you belong to a well-run collectivist community, you tend to be smaller and mostly self-sufficient. Why would you want the large, far-removed government making your community’s decisions anyway? Short answer: You wouldn’t.

You want the decision making to be as local as possible, especially when it comes to determining your community’s goals and successes. The smaller the governing body, the more your community can be left alone to thrive based on the specific wants and needs of the population. Your community’s needs are determined and met by members of your community who share your common goal a not by people who may live hundreds or thousands of miles away from you.

If the population served becomes too large, your goals and philosophies become too varied, and it is more difficult to reach a common goal or find a common theme. Often, collectivist communities fall apart simply because they become too large to maintain the many moving parts required to run such a complicated machine.

The same is most definitely true when it comes to federal government, and that is the issue that we are now facing. The organization is much too large and much too powerful, inserting itself into every aspect of modern day life.

Too many Americans rely on D.C. to be the teacher, parent, and subject-matter expert over every facet of our lives. Howver, for a collectivist community to truly thrive, it must be within the nature of smaller government in order to meet the intended goals without little-to-no outside interference.

Most Americans should agree that the citizens of Alaska have much different needs than those who live in Hawaii. Therefore it is logical to presume that ten small communities, working independently of each other, would be much more efficient and effective than one large community encompassing very different ideals and philosophies.

Leave a Reply