In the context of American abortion at the mercy of state legislators

In the context of American abortion, at the mercy of state legislators, the question of decentralization arises. Is it good or bad? If we proceed from the primacy of individual freedom (a conditionally libertarian point of view), then centralization or decentralization cannot be good or bad in and of itself. These are just technical tools in the matter of ensuring the freedom of the individual.

How do they work? We have the first problem - the danger of concentration of power in the hands of a "big state". That is why we need "small governments" - to curb the appetites of the center. However, at the same time, the following problem arises: a small government or some local community can crush the freedom of an individual just as well. Or maybe even more efficient. The central government is dangerous because it can accumulate huge resources in its hands. But at the same time, it can be weak due to its remoteness: "If you happen to be born in an empire, it's better to live in a province by the sea" (where it's harder to reach you). Whereas the authorities are regional - you are at their side, and you cannot hide from the vigorous neighborly supervision.

That is why we need central power - to restrain local inclinations towards tyranny. Individual freedom is born where central and local authorities provide mutual restraint. While those in power from the capital and locally grabbed each other's throats, a normal person can breathe freely. Therefore, if we want freedom, then we need to strive not for decentralization, but for a balance between the center and the regions.

Russia is a traditionally centralized country, where everything was done by order of the tsar-secretary-general-president. Therefore, we still have to cut and cut towards decentralization. Although, again, depending on which one: in Chechnya, for example, now their own rules (including those regarding the same abortions), but this is not the same decentralization. But in the United States, the historical tilt is the other way: there the central government had to literally win back basic rights for certain categories of people, and their absence was defended under the slogan of "state rights." Insidious Washington first abolished slavery, and then attacked the "rights of the states" even more strongly, the defenders of which up until the 60s fought for the right not to let blacks into public places.

In defense of decentralization as such, there can be a couple of arguments. For example, in a democracy it is easier to influence the regional authorities, because it is closer. Of course, when your vote is one of 30 million, and not one of 300 million, your influence is greatly increased (not really). But how does such a local "tyranny of the majority" essentially differ from the "tyranny of the majority" in the format of the entire state? Yes, and living in it is comfortable only if your views more or less coincide with the local mainstream: if you happen to be born gay in Minnesota or become a conservative in California, you can’t outvote your neighbors. It remains only to blame in another state - and this is the second argument in favor of decentralization. It differs from the argument "if you don't like Putin, go to Tbilisi," except perhaps in terms of the scale of the costs, and even then, depending on who. However, the problem is that views are distributed in "packets". There are red states that are "anti-abortion, anti-drugs, pro-guns", and blue states are "pro-abortion, pro-drugs, anti-guns". And where should those who want to "guard their marijuana plantations with legal weapons in their hands" go? Start your own Free State Project? It is possible, but the combination of views is potentially endless, but the states are limited. You will never please everyone.

So whatever one may say, the best solution is individual freedom, the opportunity for everyone to live anywhere they like. At the same time, no one forbids freedom of association in accordance with their values. The same Row-Wade did not forbid religious people to unite and defend their anti-abortion values by any legal means. He forbade them only to close abortion clinics, i.e. directly, physically interfere with other people's decisions. Therefore, today it is easy to recognize those who like to dictate their will to others, even if they hide behind the screen of "decentralization".

Mihail Pojarsky 2022-06-30