Iron Sharpens Iron Essay #27 The “Mini-State” Mindset vs Real County Sovereignty — Why Good People Alone Are Not Enough

Today in the legislation class with Don Wilson,

the question of county sovereignty came up again. When I pointed out that giving the State Legislature power to organize and restrict counties would eventually lead to centralization, the response was essentially that “the county is a mini-state” and that powers are already at different levels.

This is the mini-state mindset that is currently shaping much of NCS.

We are studying the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers,

and that is good and necessary work. Those debates shaped the original design of our republic and still offer timeless insights into the tension between centralized power and local self-governance.

But studying the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers alone is not enough.

We must also study Dillon’s Rule

— the legal doctrine that has quietly shaped how almost every state in America relates to its counties and cities for the last 150 years. Without understanding Dillon’s Rule, we risk repeating the same centralizing pattern that has eroded local sovereignty across the country, regardless of how well we study the Founding debates.

Just Studying Is Not the Same as Gaining Wisdom

Reading history and constitutional theory is important, but it does not automatically give us the wisdom to foresee what our decisions will produce in two or three generations. History is full of well-intentioned people who built systems that later drifted into centralization because they did not clearly protect the proper boundaries of power. We have so much history to reflect upon. We must use it not just to understand the past, but to ask the harder question:

What will this decision lead to in 20, 50, or 100 years?

What the “Mini-State” Mindset Really Means

When we say a county is a “mini-state,” we are saying the county is still fundamentally subordinate to the state government. The state creates the county, the state can organize it, and the state can restrict or override its powers. Even with one senator per county, the real decision-making power remains at the state level.

This is the same model that exists in almost every other state today.

Dillon’s Rule vs Home Rule — Simple Explanation

Dillon’s Rule (established in 1868)

Most U.S. states operate under Dillon’s Rule:

Counties and cities are “creatures of the state.”
They only have the powers the state legislature explicitly grants them.
The state can take those powers away or restrict them at any time.

Home Rule gives counties and cities more breathing room — they can act on local matters unless the state explicitly prohibits it.

Even under Home Rule, the state still holds ultimate supremacy.

The current NCS Constitution follows the Dillon’s Rule approach.

It gives the Legislature power to “organize counties… and to restrict their powers.”

That language keeps counties as administrative units rather than truly sovereign governing bodies.

Why This Will Lead to Centralization Over Time

Even if everyone involved today has good intentions, human nature and the natural drift of power mean that without strong constitutional protections, centralization almost always returns.

Here are real NCS examples:

Imperial County and the Salton Sea
Imperial County lives with the crisis every day. They may have the best local knowledge and the most practical solutions. Under a strong sovereignty model, they should have the constitutional authority to address it on their own terms without the state overriding or imposing a one-size-fits-all plan.
Desert counties wanting to turn the desert green
Some desert counties may want to pursue large-scale regenerative projects, water harvesting, or hemp-based agriculture. They should have the sovereign right to pursue that vision without the state legislature imposing uniform regulations that don’t fit their unique environment.
Poorer or rural counties developing their own economy
A less populated county may want to attract specific industries or create local incentives tailored to their land and people. Under the mini-state model, the state can restrict those efforts through uniform laws or funding conditions that favor larger counties.
Paradise and the Camp Fire recovery (Butte County)
For the last 8 years, Paradise and surrounding communities have been struggling to rebuild after the devastating 2018 Camp Fire. Much of the delay has come from state-level bureaucracy, permitting requirements, funding rules, and top-down decisions. If Butte County had real constitutional sovereignty, it could have moved faster on local rebuilding priorities without waiting for state approval or navigating state-imposed restrictions.
Prop 36 and AB 2108 (a very recent example)
Prop 36 passed in every single county in California, the tough-on-crime ballot measure that will reform parts of Proposition 47. — a clear expression of the will of the people at the local level. Yet the Democrat supermajority in the state legislature quickly passed AB 2108 in the dead of night to undermine it. Even with overwhelming county support, the state overrode the people’s expressed will.

Each county knows its own land, people, and challenges better than a distant state legislature. A one-size-fits-all state solution rarely serves every county well.

Good People Alone Are Not Enough

We cannot assume that good, patriotic people will always stay in control and always do the right thing. History shows that even the best-intentioned movements eventually see power concentrate when the structure itself allows it.

This is why a strong constitution is essential. It protects all people equally — not just the knowledgeable few or the current leaders. It creates structural safeguards so that future generations do not have to fight the same battles we are fighting today.

A Servitude mindset — loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as ourselves — is the spiritual foundation that keeps the structure healthy. But structure and mindset must work together.

Iron sharpens iron.

Let us study the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers — and let us also study Dillon’s Rule. Let us use the rich history we have to gain the wisdom to foresee where different paths will lead.

Let us not settle for the mini-state model. We have a rare opportunity in NCS to do something different: to set the counties free with real constitutional sovereignty so that each county can pursue the best solutions for its own people, while the state coordinates only what genuinely needs to be coordinated.

Let us build a constitution that gives each county real, protected sovereignty over its own affairs — so that Imperial County can heal the Salton Sea, desert counties can turn their land green, Paradise can rebuild at its own pace, and every county can pursue the best solutions for its own people.

Here is the exact section from the current NCS Constitution:
Page 9, Article I – Legislative Department
Sec. 34
It shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide for the organization of counties, cities and villages, and to restrict their powers of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit so as to prevent abuses in assessments and in contracting debts by such municipalities.
This is the language I was referring to when I said the state has power over counties.
My Deeper Concern Is Valid
“If the state begins to violate our constitutional rights, then we the people need to exercise the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence again.”
That is a very common answer. It sounds patriotic, but it is actually a very risky long-term strategy.
Here is the honest reality:
Relying on “We the People will rise up again in 250 years” is not a reliable safeguard.
History shows that once power becomes centralized and the structure allows it, it is extremely difficult for the average citizen to push back effectively.
Revolutions and declarations are rare, costly, and painful. We should not design a system that requires future generations to revolt in order to regain rights that we could have protected from the beginning.
This is why I keep asking the hard question:
Can we just trust the new State government to always protect all counties?
Will they do so if they run into power-control issues in the future?
The answer from history is clear: No. Good intentions today do not guarantee good behavior in 20, 50, or 100 years. Power naturally drifts toward the center unless it is structurally restrained.
That is exactly why strong, explicit constitutional language for county and city sovereignty is so important. It creates a permanent structural guardrail so that future state governments cannot easily restrict or override counties, even if the people in power change.
Bottom Line
Are we building a system that protects all people equally from the start, or are we building another system that may require future generations to revolt again?
My point stands: We should set the counties free with real constitutional sovereignty from the beginning. That is the whole idea behind why NCS was formed.

Taking Down The Giants