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.  

Before the sixteenth amendment 1913, this is how the US was. The federal government, other then to fund a war, collected it monies from the states, not the people. It was up to the states to determine how to collect it from the people.

We were not a weak government in 1912. In fact, I think the US of 1912 unchanged economically, , would last a lot longer then the US we have now.

Saying you don't care how BP does it just like saying you don't care who is elected president.  If BP is a bad company, then they should go out of business just like a bad president should go out of office.  Unfortunately, many corporations are immune to consumer sentiment because they are so big and dominant in their market.  Every gas station you visit buys oil from BP in one way or another, so you can't choose to hurt if you decide to.  Unlike a democratic government where you continually choose who you vote for.

I don't have the option to buy satellite and DSL, otherwise I would.  What you said about water is laughable.  No, I don't have the option to dig a well, and even if I wanted to the groundwater here is heavily polluted by industry so it would be a big health risk anyway.  What you don't understand about economics (which is sad considering your love affair with businesses) is a concept called natural monopoly.  American water owns the pipe system that delivers water hroughouto the city, and they aren't going to hand those rights to a competitor, so everyone is stuck with their water.  I guess the government could make American Water to share the pipe system with another water company to create competition, but that would be government involvement and you don't like that.

I'm not going to discuss this further with you, it only makes me sad how detached you are from reality and how you influence the same society that I and my family live in.  Long live democracy.

You mean the society built into the greatest nation in the world by free enterprise, only to be torn down by the government putting there hands into everything?

You mention "rights" with respect to the water company. The only reason they have pipes in places no one else is allowed to have pipes, is the government does not allow it.

I am not saying it's a bad thing for government to keep some things like that. Who wants 10 electric companies running lines all over the place? But at least direct your anger in the right direction.

If your mad that you only have one choice for water and cable, be mad that the organization that made it that way... the government.

The reason cable companies don't compete with Comcast in your area, is because the government won't allow it. The reason no other water company competes in your area, is the government won't allow it.

But they aren't "linked together", so to speak, for the purposes of making decisions about the nation. They each make decisions about their own areas and not of a much larger nation. Some people think the wait for things to get done in Congress is bad, it'd be much, much worse with 10,000 people trying to come to a single decision.

Not to say it's impossible, it's just there's a more effective way.

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.

Many Afghan insurgents may come from Pakistan, but only because they are coming from the same ethnic group that lives across the border. The Taliban is almost entirely Pashtun, and Pashtun live in Pakistan too. The opposition to the Taliban is mostly non-Pashtun (mostly Tajik, some Uzbek, Hazara, Turkmen, Baluch, and others). The number of non-Pashtun Islamist militant fighters (i.e. Arabs, Punjabis, or Chechens) is very, very small, and overrepresented.

Primarily its an ethnic conflict, as many things are boiled down to. Afghanistan is one of those countries that really shouldn't exist, like most of Africa, Iraq, or Belgium

And that's what made us a decentralized government.  Haha, well first of all, we weren't that decentralized before the 16th amendment.  Although obviously not as centralized as we are today.  Also, I'd argue a lot of that decentralized you are talking of is simply do to 2 things: weak presidents and limited communication technology.  Which is why I'd also argue the way some of those states collected taxes was similar to that of Roman tax collectors.  

No we weren't a weak government but we weren't a strong government nor a stable government at the time.  Limited technology may have contributed to this, but large businesses and even some state governments could have rivaled that of the federal government.  Hell and if there was anything to show how unstable this was, no strong government almost breaks at the seams and splits in two, or the American Civil War.  Which is why I'm curious why you didn't answer my questions about stability or having this kind of government under a larger population.  And even more curious why you think such a government would have lasted longer than this current one.  I mean you do remember the events that happened in the early to mid 19th century.  

Yes I've always liked the idea of finding a median.  It's Aristotelian method but very difficult to do.  But yes decentralized government to me is good in theory but it has a stability issue.  And people like Mafoo have good intentions when they speak of these things as we all want something that gives us more freedoms and stronger economies, but weak governments don't make weak citizens or weak businesses or weak terrorists.  But who knows if we'll ever find that median.  

That's now how I would wish it to work.

The moneys collected at the local level would go to things locally. One mayor would not care what the other mayor did with his money (unless one adjoining wanted to a larger project of some kind).

So for example, you would not have some central fund that money went into for school systems, and then one decision on how to manage all schools. You would have 10,000 independently funded school systems, all funded from the people who live in that community.

Sure, rich areas would have better schools then poor areas, but that's true today. What would happen however, is all schools would be better, because far more of the money would go to the school, If someone tried to embezzle school funds for some other project, it would be clear to the community it was being done, and it would be easy to elect someone new (because it's a small community).

The prefect world would be one government that did everything right. Governments are run by humans, so that's never going to happen. The next best thing, is a government with the most accountability. That's small government, decentralized.