(- 5) A strong centralization viewpoint:
Sample argument: Centralization has been a strong trend in American history ever since the Civil War. The Federal government holds clear, centralized monopoly power within America's borders. Total Federal, state, and local government activities tax and spend somewhere around 50% of GDP and regulate virtually all aspects of American's lives, with this trend increasing even more since 9-11. Our Federal leaders believe that they require special powers to protect the peace and make important social services available to all Americans. Government promotes modern liberal (leftist) ideology to hold together a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society where whites are on track to become another minority within a few decades. It's ideology may be classified as "environmental top down," which is the diametric opposite of the "genetic bottom up" ideology upon which America was founded. It's most powerful non-WASP group is a Jewish oligarchy which funds over 50% of the Republican and Democratic Parties, controls most major national media outside the Internet, and keeps America closely attached to Israel. The "modern liberal" bent of contemporary Federal power plays a key role nationwide to protect or advance the interests of Jews and other minorities, to include gays, feminists, and nonwhites in general. The U.S. maintains the strongest military in the world, imposing "American values" (by some people's interpretation) in the Middle East and elsewhere. On a more abstract level, we can understand many of the advantages of centralization. From the top, a good leader can more easily influence the entire organization by giving orders and setting standards. He usually commands more resources with speed and secrecy. Since organizations tend to become more centralized as they get larger, we tend to associate them with them entities that can afford staffs of highly specialized experts. Centralized structures typically have fewer checks and balances to restrain top leaders from becoming abusive or suffering covert infiltration from the outside. When organizations within an industry start to centralize (or monopolize), they leave fewer competitors as exit options for people at the bottom. However, when people at the top are very competent and have good character, they can get a lot of vital things done relatively quickly without having to bicker or be restrained by many different groups. Historically, two of the biggest forces favoring political centralization involve a fear of being unable to mobilize an adequate armed force to repel a foreign invasion and fear of lacking a sophisticated, powerful elite that can resist a subversive takeover.
|
. . . |
(+5) A strong decentralization viewpoint:
Sample argument: Maintaining decentralization was the original American ideal. In the early 1800's America was a highly decentralized society, with relatively little government by European standards (less than 5% of GDP). Until the 1840's it was overwhelming WASP from top to bottom and relied on shared religion, culture, and race to hold the society together and maintain standards on a grass roots level. There was no income tax. Its economy was almost totally in private hands and all charity came from private sources. Government raised its money from tariffs and land sales. It's philosophy is often labeled as classical liberalism (I also refer to this as "genetic bottom up" libertarian racial nationalism), which generally preferred internal development of science and industry to foreign intrigue and imperial conquest. (A huge exception were Indian-occupied Western lands, often acquired on a decentralized level by land hungry pioneer families.) Classical liberalism also preferred the maintenance of limited government to protect individual liberty. Secessionism was widely understood as a legitimate tool to restrain the central government, such as when New England threatened to secede over Federal handling of the War of 1812. On a more abstract level, we can understand many of the advantages of decentralization. Central planners managing complex systems typically get overwhelmed by inputs from the grass roots. With decentralized decision-making, one is much closer to where both problems originate and opportunities arise. Decentralized systems are generally simpler and hence tend to have greater transparency. They can move faster and with more flexibility at the lower levels. In contrast, large hierarchical organizations typically stifle innovation and free thinking, where pleasing the boss and "fitting in" tends to take priority over staying focused on accomplishing the mission in the field. Some disadvantages of decentralized entities include the fact that they are often smaller, more vulnerable to overt hostile takeover, and command fewer resources. However, they can offset these disadvantages by forming mutual aid compacts (confederations) and free trade agreements with allies. Some large corporations try to enjoy the advantages of decentralization with "loose-tight" matrix management structures or loosely held subsidiaries. These systems require high levels of competency and trustworthiness at the lower levels. Historically a major force for centralization is the rise of a predatory or parasitic elite that seeks to spread its tentacles to plunder or control a country. Certain anarcho-libertarians call America today "The Neo-Jacobin Welfare- Warfare Global Super state that Wages Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace."
|
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781