Can we trust the town hall?

The Daily Telegraph spares no ammunition in attacking, today, an often unreported abuse of State power by pen-pushers and zealous idiots: the state-sanctioned abduction of children in the UK from loving families, with the complicity of family courts.

I will spare you the details, be it just said that the conflicts of interest and distortions of the principles of justice in these cases would make Mugabe look tame.

Social work and family law are not what worries me most about the story. The social work profession often does not get the credit for the positive influence it can have on vulnerable families. Yet it often appears to be nothing more than scum of the public payroll dealing with scum of the earth. The good, on both sides, gets drowned in filth.

The most worrying aspect of this phenomenon is the mastermind: local authorities, in whose employ or influence social workers, family courts and the paid "expert witnesses" lie. As Ezra Levant shows, Canada isn't immune to demented  bullies in town halls either: just look at the plight of the Jaworski family in Clarington.

When governments promise to return power to the people, the transfer is almost always assumed to be from state to local centres. This is a great mistake. There's no greater danger than a self-proclaimed local tyrant having greater powers bestowed upon him. 

Back in 1945, Hayek published his essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society, where he underlined how the individual close to the economic activity knew better about what was needed than a central authority. I believe we can extrapolate the argument, with some liberties, to power and oppression. The closer they are to the citizen, the more effective and pervasive they can be.

Why, do we think, the most efficient and terrifying totalitarian regimes often had to rely on people snitching on each other, rather than an all-knowing secret police? Trivially put, your neighbour knows sooner than the kommissar when you've strayed from the line. Your neighbour can keep watch on you much more efficiently than a paid policeman and, without intending to do so, force you into compliance.

How closer are we to our local authority than, say, the federal or provincial government? Imagine, for speculation's sake, a power-drunk local officer entrusted with the authority to audit your taxes. He would not be hampered by the deluge of information in a central office, nor by conflicting federal, provincial and local jurisdictions. 

When the State transfers power down to local authorities, it creates an army of mini-Judases and mini-Neros. If we are serious about liberty at all, we shouldn't merely seek to shift the power centre. We should seek, within reason, its abolition or constriction. While we are at it, we should ensure all new laws create safeguards against their own abuse, to avoid cases of an anti-terrorism act being used to spy on people's recycling habits.

Politicians and civil servants in the higher spheres (federal and provincial) are too juicy a morsel for scrutiny and exposure to pass them by. When you wish their power to move into the murk below, much closer to you, be careful what you wish for.