Localism: A Philosophy of Government

by Mark M. Moore

In a work that will remind some of a modern incarnation of The Anti-Federalist Papers, author Mark Moore, originally under the pen name Achbani but now for the first time in his own name, makes a compelling case that the Founders of the United States intended a much more decentralized government than we now have, and that decentralization of power is essential to maintaining liberty. Localism maintains there are thirteen doorways through which state power is consolidated and liberty lost. The philosophy suggests that each of the thirteen must be kept shut in order for liberty to be sustained. Much of the book contains specific necessary measures in order to keep political power diffused and therefore in reach of the citizens. One of the more intriguing aspects of the philosophy is its potential to unite limited-government conservatives and libertarians together against centralizers of all stripes. A blueprint forward.

214 pages, Paperback

First published January 11, 2013

About the author

Mark Moore has had a long and varied journey into political activism. As a young man he was Communications Director for the Young Republicans of Arkansas, but left the party and became state chairman of a minor political party. Venturing back into Republican politics in a professional capacity, he helped a state senator win two state-wide primaries, the last time as Campaign Director. The Senator told the newspapers that Mark was "the best policy guy in the country." In 2008, Mark was the Communications Director for Congressman Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign in Arkansas. Mark has been prominent in the Tea Party movement, and presently is a board member of "Neighbors of Arkansas", an anti-party group whose goal is to promote independent candidates for the state legislature and for local office.

Reviews

[Saurav Poudel]

Important read in the current political climate. I enjoyed the book. The paragraphs below are not exactly a book review but inspired by it.

We don't agree on how we should be governed. We don't have to. Embracing localism and limiting federal government seems a good option.

How? I don't see a clear path and there will be massive resistance from the federal govt and its allies in media (basically all mainstream media). But it also seems inevitable. We don't agree on basic facts. Trust in govt and established institutions is at an all-time low.

[Mj Moore]

Many people today are asking how we can fix our nation's problems. This book takes an unusual approach to find solutions that are solid, but are not limited to the existing political paradigm. Going beyond philosophy into practical ideas for activists, Mr. Moore has created a useful and thought-provoking framework for reclaiming and preserving liberty.

[Tim]

I decided to read this book as I am interested in the devolution of more power down to the lowest feasible level within communities. However, I appreciate that the concept of what this might mean in a European country such as Britain will be very different to what it means within the USA. European nations with the exception of Switzerland were generally formed or derived from very centralised top down monarchic states. Whereas the original founding of the United States was a fairly collaborative act. Culturally therefore we are used to a greater level of centralisation. This book I would argue takes the most extreme view of how a federation of communities, whether at County or State level should collaborate into a single state. I don't think the solutions herein are fully workable even in the context of the USA. However, even though it is perhaps purist in its approach it does challenge you to really think about whether the USA as it is structured today truly reflects what it's founders envisaged and whether there are better models that can be evisaged.

[Jason Huether]

The subject interested me so I figured I would give it a try. It turned out more manifesto than philosophy. While it clearly outlines what should happen, it does not define a practical path on how to accomplish. Yet, it also lacks the philosophical backing I was hoping to find. The afterword discussing libertarianism and communitarianism seemed too apologetic for the book. The writing is interesting, but overall the book doesn’t add much to the topic.