The government has a responsibility to “promote the general welfare”: is decentralization conducive to that Constitutional directive?
In his lecture “Decentralization of Power and the Future of Freedom”, Dr. Steve Trost discusses how centralization in many different areas, notably surrounding government, is the future of freedom. Trost discusses many different areas that currently have too much-centralized control, and he provides some alternatives to how decentralization can occur in the future in these areas. I have included some reflective thoughts below.
The first example that I want to discuss that was talked about in the lecture is social media. In the lecture, Trost claimed that any centralized media company is not free speech because it can be regulated at a single source. While there is merit to this argument, I also understand that while the 1st Amendment exists, virtually every piece of media and information society currently consumes is moderated in some way. Much of this moderation is for obscenities over public airwaves, but is that still not an infringement of free speech according to the free enterprise perspective? Obscene speech is not even protected by the First Amendment according to Miller v. California (1973).
So how does this relate to tech companies? First off, I don’t understand how the free enterprise perspective is not critical of tech monopolies. The perspective is supportive of monopolies but then opposes centralized power. Centralized power is still the same, whether it is amassed in the free market or given by the consent of the governed. Second, just as the government regulates obscenity, I feel the government should have some responsibility to regulate misinformation that puts the public at risk. One example is during COVID-19. Facebook removed misinformation early on in the pandemic that officials deemed harmful, for example, posts that claimed that ‘drinking bleach’ would cure you of COVID-19. Does the government genuinely not have a responsibility to protect and moderate against this dangerous speech? I think it does.
And while this next point I am going to make can be hotly debated, I still think it is a valid concern. What if an influential leader or personality on social media began to spread say anti-Semitic ideology, an ideology that is similar to that of the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s. Say this leader began to radicalize their followers. Does the government not have a responsibility to regulate this kind of speech if it honestly poses a danger to the safety of citizens? I support free speech, especially the protection of speech I don’t like (including offensive speech). However, we see how powerful social media has become, and at some level, the government should be able to protect the public from danger.
The preamble of the Constitution goes like this (and I am quoting from memory here): “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. The line “promote the general welfare”, in fact, the entire preamble actually, establishes that the government should have an active role to play in securing liberty, justice, peace, and welfare for the populous. The “promote the general welfare” part is important though. Perhaps it is just a difference in foundational perspective, but I believe that government, derived from the consent of the governed, has value and has done valuable things in the past. I don’t think that everything the government does is bad, as I think many of the free enterprise perspective would say that most of what the government does is not beneficial to the public.
I understand the perspective that government is inefficient and that the private market is a better option, even if I don’t always agree with that perspective. However, I think it is disingenuous to disregard all the government does to promote the general welfare and to deem it all as bad. The government should protect against misinformation that has the potential to harm others. The government should enforce regulations on products that keep the public safe. In the lecture, it was discussed that transparency could eliminate the need for regulations because the public could make choices for themselves. I don’t think this is an incredibly valid point. I think of the movie “Erin Brockovich” or any other class action lawsuit brought against a company. Consumers don’t have time to investigate every product they buy, and I feel there is some merit to trusting the government to protect its citizens.
Certainly, the government doesn’t always get it right and often gets it wrong. But that charge to “protect the general welfare” is not a suggestion, it is a requirement, and you can’t just do away with it in the name of free enterprise.
While I have explored various perspectives in this essay, it is important to note that I do not necessarily ascribe to any argument made here 100%. This is a writing exercise, and I sought to explore various perspectives after watching the lecture, as per the assignment instructions.
