# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## [Politics] Centralist or Decentralist?

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

47 posts

- 1
- 2
- Next

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

### [Politics] Centralist or Decentralist?

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 am

I'm doing some Gov homework right now, and I've got to write a reflection of federalism (Centralism) v. antifederalism (Decentralism).
Skimming the Centrist arguments, most of the stuff makes sense to me. States tend to hold racial/ethnic biases, small communities tend not to want to help other communities, and states won't regulate industries as much for fear of losing business.
But then the Decentrist arguments were retarded... increased urbanization means state governments are more responsive to city people, state and local governments are now just as sensitive to the poor as the federal gov't, and state and local governments are "reformed and modernized" which makes them better.
------
I'm assuming it's simply because I'm finding retarded 4chan-esque Tea Party websites where everyone wharrbgals about states-rights-the-feds-shouldn't-exist-I'm-a-servant-of-god bullshit.
Could anyone give me a couple decent arguments for Decentralism, and maybe a link or two?

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

mean_liar
  Duke
  Posts: 2187
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Boston

###

- Quote

Post by mean_liar » Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:44 am

The smaller-scale that a democracy is, the more likely it's responsive to local needs.
The Centralist argument is that someone people are stupid and they need weighted impersonal guidance. That's totally valid. The other side of the coin is that if you can leverage expertise necessary to tackle your local situation you're better served by customized action than federal action.
In practice, developing that leverage is difficult and seems highly fallible. But there it is.
Top

Josh_Kablack
  King
  Posts: 5317
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Online. duh

###

- Quote

Post by Josh_Kablack » Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:46 am

Read Thomas Jefferson's original arguments for States' rights - they are fairy decent, and you only need to disregard 221 years of history to buy into them wholeheartedly.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:53 am

In other countries, decentralization is also specifically employed to help protect minorities. For instance, in the Philippines there's the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao - which was designed to give the Muslim minority a measure of self-rule.
However, such measures are only used if said minorities have strong yearnings for independence. I don't really think America has this problem (except maybe Native Americans, but even they have more or less embraced the US as a whole).
Last edited by Zinegata on Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

- Quote

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:06 am

> Zinegata wrote:(except maybe Native Americans, but even they have more or less embraced the US as a whole)

That is a very fucking touchy subject, Zine.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:20 am

> CatharzGodfoot wrote:

> > Zinegata wrote:(except maybe Native Americans, but even they have more or less embraced the US as a whole)

> That is a very fucking touchy subject, Zine.

Hence maybe
Top

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:21 am

So a small democracy caters more to the society that it controls.
And Josh, I looked around for Jefferson's stuff, but most of what I got was "Thomas Jefferson was born in... and did... and also..." Would you know where I could find a collection of his essays? Unfortunately, I can't find anything like The Federalist, where there are a bunch of essays on federalism with the same title.

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

cthulhu
  Duke
  Posts: 2162
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by cthulhu » Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:45 am

I suspect the need for intermediary layers of government and their strength is a variable that depends on things like
* What is the absolute scale involved, both in people and area
* What is the level of homogeneity of the population
etc. I doubt there is an absolute right answer. In the Australian context I favor abolition of the states, but I can see a different answer being true when you increase the number of people by a fact of 15 or 50.
Last edited by cthulhu on Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:17 am

Let's go with the United States of America, than.

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:37 am

In the context of the formation of the United States, the centralists were right and the decentralists were wrong. It's pretty cut and dried. The people who wanted more decentralization wanted it primarily because they wanted to defend systems where they had a lot of local power and could own people and shit, and they didn't think that would fly if other people had a say in whether they could do it. Recall that the decentralist argument eventually went to war, and THIS was their actual rallying cry.
What we consider a "moderate" position on centralization today is actually way more centralized than even the radical centralists were calling for back in the original conventions. There are not a lot of (sane) people who seriously question the need for a national highway system, post office, tax code, or currency. But back then, those were all pretty radical ideas. Yes, even the national currency one.
That being said, I come from a city where the average rainfall is 28 inches a year. And we're basically a suburb of San Jose, which is on the other side of the hill and only gets 15 inches a year. We are taking water conservation measures all the time, and people from Ohio or Florida have no basis for understanding any of the things we do to keep ourselves from dying of thirst. Water is a major local issue and it makes sense to handle it as a local issue. If you were to sit down and think of them, you could find a thousand such issues from around the country that would be best handled locally - if nothing else because they aren't even comprehensible as issues on a national scale. Questions like where to build a hospital or highway are probably best asked and answered by people who know the area in question. Armies have Corporals in addition to Generals.
-Username17
Last edited by Username17 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:27 am

> For Valor wrote: But then the Decentrist arguments were retarded... increased urbanization means state governments are more responsive to city people, state and local governments are now just as sensitive to the poor as the federal gov't, and state and local governments are "reformed and modernized" which makes them better.

It's actually pretty simple. It's a sliding scale of coordination versus locality. Decentrists are very correct when they claim that adding more layers to bureaucracy makes it more inefficient and harder to respond to local issues. Not to mention that the way that the United States' republican (small-r) government is set up officials become more and more detached from local concerns the higher up they go in the food chain.
That said, the sliding scales tends to be tilted more towards the organization end as time goes on as technology and politics improve. Bureaucracies are much more efficient than they used to be, which is why modern militaries are so freakishly powerful.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:43 am

Frank's argument is not entirely wrong. But it's rather oversimplified.
The Civil War wasn't so much a move towards decentralization, as it was to disintegration. It wasn't about "The centralized government in Washington wanting to impose laws in South Carolina". It was South Carolina saying "Fuck you, we're leaving!"
And the United States actually remained largely decentralized even after the Civil War was won. That's how the South got away with the Jim Crow laws until the 1960s, a full century later.
What actually drove the United States to centralization was the the two World Wars, and the Great Depression. States can handle local services well enough. But when it comes to organizing a large military force capable of taking on the Nazis and Japan, you need to centralize power.
And in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Federal government retained its powers largely to keep the defense industry going - to "counter" the threat of the Soviet Union.
Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is up for debate, even to this day.
A strong centralized government can, for instance, ensure that states don't do shit like passing Jim Crow laws that violate key principles that define the country.
On the other hand, the US currently spends more money on the military than any other nation on Earth. In fact, almost half the military spending on this planet is spent by the United States. This kind of money can only be raised via a strong centralized government - but it doesn't mean that these massive resources will be spent wisely.
Last edited by Zinegata on Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:07 pm

I'm coming to you guys for all my Gov assignments, now...

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:29 pm

> Frank wrote:That being said, I come from a city where the average rainfall is 28 inches a year. And we're basically a suburb of San Jose, which is on the other side of the hill and only gets 15 inches a year. We are taking water conservation measures all the time, and people from Ohio or Florida have no basis for understanding any of the things we do to keep ourselves from dying of thirst. Water is a major local issue and it makes sense to handle it as a local issue. If you were to sit down and think of them, you could find a thousand such issues from around the country that would be best handled locally - if nothing else because they aren't even comprehensible as issues on a national scale. Questions like where to build a hospital or highway are probably best asked and answered by people who know the area in question. Armies have Corporals in addition to Generals.

[sarcasm]
Would you please stop sending your civil engineers to build our roads? They keep forgetting that it rains here all the time, and roads - especially those pretty ones with flowers and curbs on both sides - need drains.
[/sarcasm]
For Valor: Did you discuss the Articles of Confederation?
Last edited by Maj on Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:48 pm

we're supposed to discuss how the arguments of the [De]Centralists were proven over time, and whether (from a modern standpoint) they're right or wrong.
The teacher explicitely told us that dissing the AoC was a waste of our time.

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:16 am

The strongest argument for Decentralization really, is that it's a check against the abuse of power. You can't spend several hundred billion dollars on failed military programs if you don't have several hundred billion dollars to begin with.
Other ways of preventing the abuse of powers also exist. That's why the governments today are supposed to revolve around checks and balances. However, if the checks and balances system is failing, then your only options are either to 1) Reform the system, or 2) Withold the money from the centralized government.
All the other reasons favoring decentralization, frankly, boil down to pandering to traditionalism. But in practical terms these arguments don't really do anything.
----
The problem with Decentralization howeveris, there are simply things you can't do under such a system. You can take on a fourth-rate military power like Spain with a Decentralized system. But taking on the Nazis and their Panzer Divisions? That needs a centralized system.
One more thing about a centralized system: It doesn't actually prevent people from having a half-decent and responsive local government. The power of the states didn't simply evaporate in the aftermath of the Second World War. The Federal government simply became more powerful - and a lot of that power was actually employed on the international, rather than national, stage (the national programs being Civil Liberties to repeal the Jim Crow laws, nationwide social security, and a couple of others.).
So, really, to sum it up:
Centralized Government:
Pros: You can really do great things with a ton of money.
Cons: If you fuck up with that ton of money or abuse your power, it will be a huge fuck up. Invasion of Iraq for instance? Totally not possible without a centralized government.
Decentralized Government:
Pros: It prevents anybody from having too much power.
Cons: You'll be in deep trouble if Mexico decides to invade you.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Josh_Kablack
  King
  Posts: 5317
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Online. duh

###

- Quote

Post by Josh_Kablack » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:40 am

> That's how the South got away with the Jim Crow laws until the 1960s, a full century later.

Better make that a century and a half and still counting
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:49 am

Should I scratch out "Civil Liberties" as one of the achievements of centralized government then?
Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:37 am

Add mobility to centralized government. Centralized governments have the ability to act more quickly and decisively than decentralized governments.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:41 am

I would agree for the national/international level. With certain preconditions (i.e. not having a weak Congress like the US does currently)
At the local level... it's probably just about the same unless it's the "Everything must have the Fuhrer's signature" sort of situation.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Sep 27, 2010 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

cthulhu
  Duke
  Posts: 2162
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by cthulhu » Mon Sep 27, 2010 5:54 am

to be fair the us would probably be better off if it decentralised. and by decentralised, I mean hived off california, the south, and the industralised NE from each other. You'd squeeze everything else in somewhere related.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:48 am

> cthulhu wrote:to be fair the us would probably be better off if it decentralised. and by decentralised, I mean hived off california, the south, and the industralised NE from each other. You'd squeeze everything else in somewhere related.

The South cannot afford its extravagant lifestyle without California and the Industrialized NE to mooch off of. To this day they don't understand the need for taxation and governmental investment. Without a constant rain of money from the North, their economy would collapse completely. I'm talking gravel roads and volunteer teachers. Like, more than they already do.
-Username17
Top

Ganbare Gincun
  Duke
  Posts: 1022
  Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:42 am

###

- Quote

Post by Ganbare Gincun » Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:59 am

> FrankTrollman wrote:The South cannot afford its extravagant lifestyle without California and the Industrialized NE to mooch off of. To this day they don't understand the need for taxation and governmental investment. Without a constant rain of money from the North, their economy would collapse completely. I'm talking gravel roads and volunteer teachers. Like, more than they already do.

So why not pull the trigger and be done with it? What does the South offer the North aside from oil and medical expertise?
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:03 am

The fact that 600,000 Americans died to prevent the South from pulling away the last time they tried?
Top

cthulhu
  Duke
  Posts: 2162
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by cthulhu » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:00 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:

> > cthulhu wrote:to be fair the us would probably be better off if it decentralised. and by decentralised, I mean hived off california, the south, and the industralised NE from each other. You'd squeeze everything else in somewhere related.

> The South cannot afford its extravagant lifestyle without California and the Industrialized NE to mooch off of. To this day they don't understand the need for taxation and governmental investment. Without a constant rain of money from the North, their economy would collapse completely. I'm talking gravel roads and volunteer teachers. Like, more than they already do.
> -Username17

Thats why the US would be better off.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

47 posts

- 1
- 2
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS