De-Centralization VS Centralization

I have a thought to share with you. I hope you like it, make it your own, and get lots of milage with it. Let me know how it goes. Heres the thought.

Often, the way one approaches a subject is more important than the specific subject. For instance, if we just ask, "Is it better (physically, morally, ethically, pragmatically, etc) to have our human society decentralized as much as possible, or centralized as much as possible? With that question, we can put our Binoculars on to see far and wide, and we can put our microscopes on to see detail by detail.

From a Binocular point of view, we can see that many times human history has provided us with examples of Centrally planned and Controlled societies and very decentralized ones. From a Microscope point of view, we can also look inside each society and see various levels and then ask the same question of each level of organization. For instance, food preparation and delivery systems. In China 1965 vs China 2005, we can see two different systems. See the movie called To Live for an excellent example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Live_%28film%29 Communal "food kitchens" where tried under the guiding philosophy of communism, and it was believed to be a more efficient way. Why have whole villages just provide one Food Kitchen for all? Food Distribution went from a decentralized provision system, ie individual household, to a centralized village Food Kitchen system.

We can look at many things in society through these two lens and ask, "IS CENTRALIZATION system of product delivery better than a DeCENTRALIZED system?"

Currently the debate in the USA is over semi-centralized 3rd party pays medical system, to taking it all the way to a fully centralized system. May I suggest, to be more effective advocates for those without health care, as well as those burdened under the current system, we suggest we will get BETTER Results if we move to a fully decentralized medical system? Couching the issue in terms of Centralization vs DeCentralization, may ....just may change the nature of the debate today. Terms such as Government Care vs Privatization, do not make the case clearly enough. It has been my experience that liberals do not like Centralized anything, yet love government Care everything. Ironic, illogical, double think? Certainly but by pointing the direction of one of their favorite word terms, "localism".."homegrown"...ie, its best which happens naturally from the bottom up, rather than dictates from the top down, keeps the issue alive. Terms that are out of bounds (out of bounds because they hold different meanings and FEELINGS are such terms as free market, free enterprise, capitalism, national care, etc) should not be used, and instead, all issues framed in the decentralized vs Centralized format.

Take the claim that the Federal Reserve should be "nationalized" to "spread its profits to us all". Again those that support Fed Nationalization should be asked, is it not better to move in a decentralized monetary system where in no one has power and profits are decentralized? I mean, to nationalize the Fed would mean Centralization of monetary power, something we have now with the current banking cartel. How can MORE centralization of power be a move in the right direction? The idea that profits from this operation would be spread far and wide, that is decentralized, is idealistic at best, and not within our human experience. Examples do not abound. If monetary creation and interest rates are fully decentralized, the masses would be empowered and the elites would have nothing over them.

So, you may wish to plug in the DeCentralization VS Centralization argument to any subject that comes along. Try it, and see how well it is received.

How about Protection? Our founding fathers COULD have had a Standing Fully Paid for Military, like Britain and France and Spain, but they chose to diffuse this power of protection throughout the land via the right to self defense as found in the 2nd amendment. Now how decentralized did they mean to make it. Obviously State run "well regulated militias" was pretty decentralized when compared to the British, French, and Spanish models of nationally paid for Standing Armies & Navies. Yet the Founders felt that through that DeCentralization of self defense, the communal desires for self defense would be met. Should the Founders have gone further in the way of DeCentralization? Did they go further?

You see, framing the issue in this way, may..... MAY make many come to see the light. Staying away from terms often used on the Right and on the Left, is a good way to help those who may be thinking about the issue from a level of concern that you may not have or that your words do not address. For instance, if my level of concern is not me, not my individual family, but my country, as in ...."mmmmm I wonder what would be best for my country?" Then your choice to speak to them on whichever subject it is by framing the issue as De-Centralization vs Centralization will help you avoid the pitfals of emotionally HOT terms found on the Left and Right of the political spectrum.

Ted Rawl, democrat, editorialist, and cartoonist, writes about his evolution to being "Ok" with the "right to carry a gun" issue...and the portal that he found that drove him to that position was not any words or essays found on the NRA website...nor was it passionate pleas to "protect my family", nor was it scholarly arguments for the 2nd amendment as a libertarian sees it, but rather it was the question of POWER.... is it better (his better not yours), for this POWER to be DeCentralized or Centralized, and how much so?

My two liberal parents, life long public school teachers, pro teachers Union, pro-public schools....... JUMPED at the chance to get OUT of the bonds of Centralized Public school controls to start their own Charter School. The CHOICE for them was the deciding factor, for they still are 100% for public schools, but like liberals most everywhere, they also believed in Choice, and the right to have a CHOICE was a fact born from DeCentralized power, something they also support. They have helped to champion Charter Schools so much, that Arizona now has, I am told, the most Charter Schools per students around. Now that is a lot of choice and decentralization of government school power. Of course there is still a long way to go, to make it freer, but its moving in the right direction...... unlike say medical care in the USA.

Crazy parents? Odd? Doublethink? Illogical? --- yes. But UNUSUAL??? NO! I dare say its universally Human. What ever you call it, these liberals got there, through a deep belief that individual choice via decentralized power is a "good thing".... the fact they also support centralized schooling AT THE SAME TIME, does not bother them in the least. George Orwell was not the first to point out how illogical and inconsistent we humans are. I am sure if I met and talked with many of my fellow DailyPaulers I would find many illogical inconsistencies on the various issues we have as well.......of course I think that I am perfectly logical and consistent, (wink) The fact that after an hour speaking with me and you see my own "doublethink" on the issues, means that doublethink is like Orwell said, nearly Universal. ("nearly" cause he could not see that he held any illogical inconsistencies--- like writing the most anti-socialist book (1984) and being at the same time a card carrying socialist).

So is there any hope to building a freer society? Yes, and my point is we all can get ourselves and many others "out there", to move towards freedom ----- and one way "to get there" is --- whatever the political social issue --- emphasize the angle of De-Centralization of power vs the Centralization of power and stay clear of political terms that have pre-Decided good or bad connotations.

Just a thought....Oh, and if you have not seen the movie, I highly recommend it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Live_%28film%29

In peace & liberty,
Treg