[rmah]

The idea that more power in the hands of local governments seems attractive. Even knowing better, it still seems attractive to me...

You imagine people knowing the lawmakers better. You think that the lawmakers will be more connected to the community. That they'll be more likely to protect the freedoms that they also want to enjoy. At first blush, this all seems reasonable.

However, if you look at history, the actual practice is the opposite of that. When power is mostly exercised locally (at the town level), over time, laws are passed to regulate the minutia of daily life. When shops can be open. Laws about who can work in which trade. Laws about who can use "public" infrastructure and when. Laws about what you can do with your pets. Laws down to what colors and fabrics your cloths are made of. And, of course, laws to protect their hold on power.

It turns out that people in power at local levels are nosy parkers who will try to force everyone they can to live the way they think is best. And they become generationally powerful. Sad but it's the historical reality.

Personally, my speculation is that it's because most people try to exercise all the power they're given. And since those local lawmakers don't have to think about "big" issues in a broader sense, they just make laws about "small" issues and deal with big issues only when they are pushed in front of them.

[kybernetikos]

According to Rawls, to make good laws, we need to make laws behind a veil of ignorance - law makers need to consider things at an abstract level. It's very difficult to get that level of abstraction when everyone knows the particularities of everyone else at the local level.

There's also the question of the size of the talent pool that you draw your leaders from.

[syshum]

Well 2 things.

First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc.

Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop...

And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear

I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government