And Now, for Some Truly Radical Federalism

The thrilling and wacky conclusion to Rule 6: Break Up the Blue Zones.

So far I have suggested that urban villages take over zoning, noise ordinances, parks, and other typical urban functions. But why stop there? Why not go big and apply radical federalism to truly controversial issues where there are strong passions on both sides?

You might think of some good "Why nots" while reading the paragraphs below, and your reasons might be good ones. But put on a helmet and/or knee pads before reading so you don't hurt by your knee jerk reactions. And maybe imbibe in your favorite mind expanding drug, be it LSD, a fine pinot noir, or a bag of fried pork rinds. Try to objectively filter between the good and the silly. I'm about to unleash another Kraken in your general direction.

Once upon a time, the United States of America experimented with making alcoholic beverages illegal nationwide. The results were disastrous. Organized crime exploded and law enforcement was corrupted and moved to the federal level. The Deep State was born. Even after Prohibition ended organized crime continued to be a major menace; it took Robert Kennedy's dialing back the Bill of Rights to get the Mob somewhat under control. Alas, the RICO laws that were meant for Mafia dons have since been repurposed against minor criminals and Trump Administration appointees thanks to the execrable Joe Biden -- and I'm referring to the real Joe Biden, back when his brain was still functioning.

While national alcohol prohibition is long gone, we still have quite a few dry counties remaining. While such localized prohibition may result in smuggling and a bit of moonshining, the overall crime effect is small. Those who want a willpower assist to avoid alcohol can move to a dry county and the rest of us can live elsewhere.

National prohibition failed because a significant fraction of the American populace never signed onto it in the first place. After the Revolution the United States went on a serious bender; eventually, many Protestant denominations decided it was time to sober up. (Note how many dry areas correspond to traditional whiskey brewing and moonshining areas from early in our history.) While the idea of alcohol prohibition had deep traction among American Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jews never signed onto the idea. As a result we ended up with Irish, Italian and Jewish gangsters, instead of Irish, Italian, and Jewish neighborhoods where you could legally go to get a drink -- if we had real federalism.

Imagine if we were to apply radical federalism to all vice laws. Let urban villages decide whether free soft drink refills, cigarette smoking, cute waitresses, drinking, gambling, cannabis, polka dancing, coca leaf chewing, bowling, prostitution, exotic dancing, gladiatorial combat, or dueling is illegal. Let villages decide if their local businesses need to use the correct pronouns for every permutation of perversion. If a particular jurisdiction demands that all fertile females wear a bag over their heads in public, so be it. I just won't go there.

There does need to be some constraint on what localities can condone. Slavery, pedophilia, and human sacrifices are universally bad. And High Justice should come from a higher level of government -- no executing people for apostasy or drawing cartoons featuring a certain false prophet unless the state as a whole votes for such (a scenario I hope to prevent, BTW). Village laws should apply to village residents and businesses primarily. No setting up speed traps or Sharia traps. If you want to impose cartoon restrictions on local businesses, fine. But the penalties that villages can impose should be capped.

And higher levels of government can provide bureaucratic friction or worse to the more serious vices. Even Timothy Leary advocated for requiring a license before doing LSD or other serious drugs. And I would require a prescription for the more concentrated forms of both uppers and downers. Chewable coca leaf, coca leaf tea, original formula Coca Cola? Local decision. Ditto for laudanum or smokeable opium. Ditto for free refills of sugary soft drinks. These are reversible vices, no harder to quit than now legal tobacco. For powder cocaine or crack you should prove lack of family or financial responsibilities. For heroin or fentanyl you should prove serious pain or Democratic party registration.

I do not expect you to support all of the above proposals; I got intentionally wacky, just to excite some neurons. What I do expect you to do is THINK. Recognize what government can and cannot do, and weigh the costs of government action with the actual benefit. A government can easily drive vice sales underground, as long as there is political will. This does make indulgence more difficult and can dissuade those on the edge of partaking. A government can easily do something about blatant drug abuse. If someone is shooting up to the point of complete uselessness, and is zonked out on a park bench surrounded by poop and needles, arrest away. Gathering evidence of drug abuse is trivial.

But responsible recreational drug use is really, really, really hard to stop, and in trying to stop it the Land of the Free has shredded the Bill of Rights and racked up one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world. All the participants in a drug transaction want the deal to go through. There is no one to call the cops. To stop voluntary drug sales requires some form of snooping. In an area where use of the drug in question is extremely frowned upon, civilians can do the snooping and call the cops. In an area where the drug in question is popular, KGB level police tactics are required. This can make people unhappy enough to call for defunding the police and tolerating general lawlessness.

I don't like KGB tactics, and I don't like general lawlessness.

So THINK.