I’ve been doing a bit of reflecting on my political views, and I think I’ve identified the reason I tend to prefer the federal government setting social and commercial laws and regulations over allowing businesses or states the freedom to decide whether or not to set these policies. Most of it boils down to the idea that the freedom to choose only benefits those who have an ability to make the choice.
I want to preface this argument with a few ideas:
- Premise 1: I’m defining privilege as the degree to which one is able to engage with public and private entities within society.
This leads to the following two ideas:
- Premise 2: Those who live in cities are generally privileged when compared to those in rural areas because they have more choices in the public and private entities with which they wish to interact (restaurants, grocery stores, movie theaters, telecommunication companies, doctors, schools, etc.).
- Premise 3: Those of a higher socioeconomic status (SES) are generally privileged when compared to those of a lower SES status because they have a greater ability (financial resources, job stability and security, ability to relocate easily, etc.) to choose the public and private entities with which they wish to interact.
While it isn’t necessarily related to the items above, I also want to use the following as a basis for argument:
- Premise 4: The collective goal of a society (citizens, businesses, and governments) is to ensure the needs of all citizens are met.
With these ideas presented, let’s begin our discussion.
The Ideal
I want to begin with what may be a somewhat shocking statement: I agree that in an ideal world you could have a relatively small central government and allow businesses and states the freedom to set their own policies, with varying degrees of support for or discrimination against certain populations of people and/or varying degrees of employee/consumer/business friendly policies. However, this ideal world is only ideal if all citizens have 1) bountiful options in order to choose an entity that meets their needs and 2) the ability to interact with this entity.
I fear a reader may be lost in this, so let me provide a few examples:
Example 1: Statewide Policies (same-sex marriage, IDEA guidelines)
Following my ideal, it could be possible for a federal government to leave it up to individual states to set policies whether or not they choose to recognize same-sex marriage, or whether or not they would like schools to follow IDEA guidelines for serving students with disabilities. Currently federal regulations ensure both of these, but the issue of same-sex marriage was a contested issue in the past with many saying it should be left up to the states. In her confirmation hearings, US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos stated that it should be up to the states to abide by these guidelines.
However, if we are to ensure the needs of all citizens are being met (Premise 4), then we need to ensure that some number of states exist that allow same-sex marriage or are willing to meet the needs of those with disabilities, and that also have policies to provide for the other needs of these individuals (if you had a gay couple who had adopted a child with disabilities, they would need to find a state that allowed for both of these items). This may be somewhat easy, since we have 48 contiguous states, and surely at least a few of them would fit this description. It is worth mentioning, though, that rarely do we ever do 100% of our activities in one state. If that married couple is in a car wreck in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage, would they have any assurance that the hospital would grant them visitation rights?
Once an appropriate state is selected, item 2 from my ideal requires that these individuals then must have the ability to move to this state. This would mean the couple from my example must have the financial resources to physically move to a new state; the resources to search for, apply, and obtain employment in this new state (which would take both time and money); the resources to maintain their existing social network (traveling to their original state to visit family/friends) or develop a new social network in their new state; and other costs associated with restarting one’s life in a new location, potentially hundreds of miles fro your home. The choice then for this family is whether or not their marriage or their student’s education is worth the thousands of dollars, hours of work, and considerable stress it would take to move to a new state. This may be easier for those of a higher SES, but this facing financial instability may be unable to move to a state that fits their needs (Premise 3).
Example 2: Business Policies (customer discrimination, employee policies)
Let’s move this focus down to business-level policies. Many people say businesses should have the ability to choose which populations of people they wish to serve. This was apparent recently when a few bakeries refused to produce wedding cakes for any same-sex couple as this was against their beliefs, effectively discriminating against LGBT individuals based on their sexual orientation. Some businesses may also choose to place certain policies on their employees that may burdensome or exploitative for some of its employees. Some examples of this could be businesses choosing whether or not to follow the recent FLSA overtime guidelines or the cases from a few years ago where businesses fought the federal regulation requiring the businesses to provide health insurance to all near-full-time employees and that this insurance should cover various types of birth control.
Let us now examine these business policies (both centered on consumers and centered on employees) and see if they pass our two point test for the ideal. The first requires there to be many choices for the individual to find an employer or a goods/service provider that fits their needs. In an urban setting, this may not be an issue, as there could be hundreds of bakers that would be willing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, and a smaller set of these may lie within the couple’s budget. Similarly, the employee facing oppressive policies may find several companies in a similar industry, with a smaller set potentially having positions for which the employee is qualified. As we move towards rural areas though, this freedom of choice is depleted (Premise 2). Few businesses means there are fewer options for these individuals to find an entity that is going to meet their needs. Moving on to the second step of our ideal test, these individuals must have the ability to engage with the new business. Our urban individuals may not have much of an issue to engage with the new businesses, but those in rural areas may only find companies that are substantially farther from their home or that have higher prices or lower salaries/benefits from their original choice. Similarly, those with of a lower SES may not have the financial and time resources necessary to seek out and engage with the new option.
Example 3: What if no businesses/employers/states allow “X”?
While this may be a bit less likely, what if all businesses for a given area/industry discriminated against a certain group of consumers? What if all employers for a given area/industry had policies in place that took advantage of their employees? What if all states had policies that did not meet the needs of its citizens? Leaving all of this up to these decentralized entities presents a possibility where it is impossible to find an organization that is willing to meet your needs.
Conclusion
I recognize that my cases presented above are fairly general, but I hope you can at least see where I am coming from. I tried to use general terms so that one could easily find a policy, see my test for an ideal situation and the initial premises, and then see how well the policy works against the test. I understand the appeal of decentralized policy, but I believe in most cases it is overly burdensome to the general public, who may need to expend considerable resources in finding a state, employer, or business that meets their needs. Building on this, I believe public and private entities, in general, have more ability to accommodate the needs of their consumers and employees than the cost of the general public to seek out organizations that fit within their ideals. I understand how burdensome employee regulations may hurt small businesses, but that may be just the price to pay for doing business. If a regulation is fulfilling a valid need, then the business should want to put this policy in place for its employees.
One Concession
I will admit that I see one benefit for decentralized policies: it is likely easier to lobby for change within a local business, city, or state than it would be for a federal government. However, this only gets easier as the institution gets smaller. Large corporations or states may be just as hard to change as the federal government. This then seems to suggest that it should not be the states but the actual cities that make these policies. I haven’t explored this thought experiment in detail, but it seems like this could make interstate and intercity business a nightmare.
Leave a Reply