| Zucas said: Well that's all nice in theory I suppose, but I look back at history and would say this is not going to work. I mean there are many throughout history that make truth claims of decentralized government giving more freedoms and ending tyranny but it's hardly ever worked. But I'm not completely clear on your entire thought here, so I would ask, would this actually allow any nation to be stable. I mean let's not forget America tried this once and it failed horribly. I'd also bring up the idea that how would this kind of government, if implemented in America at the beginning, had stopped something like the American Civil War. Could it have even combated it? Or for something more current, how would this stop factions from forming tearing a nation into pieces. I always think of Greek city-states when people start talking about a confederation, because you had these people that identified with one another but were warring nations at the same time. Obviously then there was no centralized government but that's what I think of. And then even further, I think of them having to join up to fight the Persians and maintain there freedom, only to eventually lose it numerous times after and be overrun by a dictator. So yea just your opinions on that because as I stated, you aren't the first to think this is the solution and I'm just curious how you think a government could survive such scenarios and stay a whole piece. Truthfully, when I hear decentralized government I think of weak government and weak governments don't last long. |
Well, there are two extremes of government: extreme government control (dictatorships/tyranny) and anarchy (no government). Finding the right balance between the two extremes is kind of a trial-and-error method.
I agree that decentralized government is a step in the wrong direction because in my mind it leans too far to anarchy.
The BuShA owns all!
