Home / Decentralization / Video: Decentralization vs. Bureaucratic Monopoly
Print Friendly and PDF

Video: Decentralization vs. Bureaucratic Monopoly

Written by Gary North on February 15, 2013

Invest 4 minutes to this video. If it’s right — and it is — then what is the solution?

One word: decentralization. I hope not this word: disintegration.

Two words: county rights.

It means that everything else is tinkering. It means that nothing fundamental will change. It means that any attempt to reform the system will fail.

It means that national politics is a waste of our time. It means that the Powers That Be keep Americans amused by screening the candidates in rigged elections in which they can’t lose and we can’t win. Ever.

What can produce a viable solution? Three words: the Great Default.

When Washington’s checks bounce, the bureaucratic system will be de-funded.

It’s coming. Prepare.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

8 thoughts on “Video: Decentralization vs. Bureaucratic Monopoly

  1. awkingsley says:

    We badly need to support candidates who advocate State's Rights. State's Rights return power and control back to the people – power over the purse strings – power to defund the consequences of immorality. Return to State's Rights to defund Planned Parenthood and beyond. Republicans need to avoid all of the head butting and locked horns over Social Issues by regaining control via State's Rights. In all Red States, Republicans will be able to pass whatever legislation they want to handle immorality. In Blue States, Republicans will need to work harder, but in most Blue States the battle can be won with extra effort.

  2. LarryFrom10EC says:

    The great fallacy in these gentleman's logic is they assume the (federal) government must do everything it is doing. The scale called for in the US Constitution would be sufficient if the federal government limited itself to its enumerated duties, and not try to control every aspect of every citizen's life.Then state and local governments can perform the functions now being unConstitutionally performed by the federal government, if indeed the citizens deem it necessary for government to do so.

  3. The democratic process today in America is akin to allowing the inmates of a gulag to vote for the commandant and guards who run the camp. Candidate "B" promises to rescind the barbaric order of the present commandant, candidate "A", to shoot any inmate who crosses the white line five feet in front of the barbed wire enclosure. Under his command, the guards would be ordered to shoot only if an inmate touches the barbed wire enclosure. To kill a careless inmate is of no use to anyone. The supporters of candidate "A" are ecstatic over this commitment to civilized behavior. Candidate "A" argues that such a change to his policy would not be fair to all inmates. An inmate of some athletic ability who reached the enclosure might find a way to hop over the fence and escape from the gulag before the guards could open fire. His supporters are ecstatic over this commitment to equality.

    It doesn't occur to any of the inmates to wonder why any of them should be in the gulag at all. So,after all the posturing and promises, it matters not who is elected. The gates will not swing open. The machine gun towers will continue to be manned, the inmates will continue to be threatened and abused and the forced labor will continue. Such is the nature of political democracy. People with self respect do not vote. Voting confers legitimacy upon an intrinsically immoral system of coercion.

  4. Oops! There's a typo in my posting. The sentence above should read: "The supporters of candidate "B" are ecstatic over this commitment to civilized behavior."

  5. If Madison is right, I get about 13 million as the maximum population to be represented by 435. That may sound very small to many but it's only in modern times that we've gotten used to population numbers so large that 13 mil sounds small. I'm reading a biography of William Tyndale, and the biographer points out that in Tyndale's time, about 400 years ago, Bristol with 6000 residents was one of the 5 largest cities in England, and London, the largest, had "tens of thousands"! A far cry from the 12 million or so in London today. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that 13 million is not an inconsiderable population, and the guys in the video may be right. But we had a president, one A. Lincoln, who set a precedent: Any attempt to downsize the Republic will be met with lethal force. So where do we go from here?

  6. Blair Franconia, NH says:

    We've had centralization since we established Washington, DC, as our capital.

  7. Local Leader says:

    The video is excellent and the point raised seems good to me. I need to think about it more! If workable, the point seems to be to get involved in your LOCAL politics and government. Still, ethics and goodness must prevail. Too much government is now corrupt.

  8. the root problem is that FedGov have taken to themselves, illegaly, all manner of "authority" never given it by our Founders. If FedGov were to retrenche to ONLY those matters originally given it, then the states, far closer to the people, would deal wtith such matters locally, as originally intended. Once ov are only dealing with their origienally assigned matters the problems cited by these two men largely disappear.