The only possible argument one can make for moving power away from the local level is because at the level the law can’t be passed. This kind of movement is intrinsically anti-libertarian if you are assuming that at the local level a functioning democracy is the stumbling block to passage of that law. If one attempts to move the law to the next level they are doing so against the wishes of the people they are attempting to affect. It’s really hard to see how you can get around this problem when advocating for movement of law to the larger level than then local. One should note that the Roe vs Wade decision was most certainly an act by a federal entity to force their will on a public mostly against abortion.

Which is why I drafted the other argument for your position. This argument is valid and actually works a criticism. The problem with it of course is that it leads to the silly outcome that we can’t post about most topics.

At the end of the day it’s simply not clear how you disagree with the notion of localizing power while at the same time not force a group of people to do your will after they had determined democratically that they did not want to.

Perhaps I’m being unclear by being snarky and sarcastic… if so, I’m in good company around here. But very explicitly: I usually agree that the stupid thing a local government has done is stupid. I’m happy to hear you criticize it. And after I agree with your criticism, I will ask: does this make you reconsider, at all, your preference for local government? Aren’t you supplying evidence against one of your own positions? How do you reconcile this?

So far you haven’t answered any of those questions, so I’ll just let them be explicit here.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Ultimately anything you disagree with is easy to call a perverse outcome, - I could just as easily point to components of your arguments that lead to outcomes I consider unacceptable, but at least I recognize that at the end of the day my aversion to (for example) indefinite protraction and proliferation of armed conflict is a value judgment.

Why must one have the good sense to judge overly general arguments superior?

By the way, saying that a position is ‘good sense’ is about as persuasive to me as the global warming advocate saying “this issue has already been brought to its conclusion; no further debate is necessary” is to you.