The more concentrated/centralized the power, the more prone it

>>135474070
>The more concentrated/centralized the power, the more prone it is to be controlled by special interest.
What is that even supposed to mean?

Libertarianism and neo-liberalism are basically Jewishness In Economics.

>>135476141
He's saying that a strong federal government is easier to compromise than many state governments would be.

>>135476141
are you in favor of subsides for oil companies?

I be not, but the amount that you as individual transfer to oil companies is so low that it doesn't pay off for you to organize politically against it - that is, the outrage is dispersed.

That is why special interest wins.

Sure, by all means, laboratory of democracy that shit. I'm sure we can find a state that wants to be fucking wealthy and is willing to fuck over its economy less than the rest.

Hint: I just gave up why leftists don't want to decentralize power EVER. It would make them look TERRIBLE.

>>135476141
If the government did not have the power to write laws that favour certain corporations that lobby them, then there would be less corruption. If government didn't have the power to create markets for their friends, then it would not happen.

>>135474070
identity politics; the patriarchy is the default societal structure and this is bad so they think they need a powerful messiah figure (that totally doesn't end up being fundamentally patriarchal) to give their lives agency

>>135476141
It's the Versailles effect. When the Sun King concentrated the full power of the state into his person, it became possible for a single individual (who was not the King) to control national policy simply by winning the kings favor. Louis literally encouraged this to make the nobles compete for his affection rather than to compete with each other directly (which had greatly weakened royal power for most of French history).

OP's point is that a strong federal government is a single point of failure in democracy, whereas a more confederal structure makes 50 points of failure.

I am not surprised that basic political theory is baffling to the average Swede.

>>135478525
>I am not surprised that basic political theory is baffling to the average Swede.
Irrelevant, but I'm not going to fall to your low level.
What I mean is that I don't think power is allotted. Power can't be overtaken by special interest, because it is special interest. Power isn't given, it's taken.

>>135479846
>Power can't be overtaken by special interest, because it is special interest.

what?

>>135480057
It already is inherently special interest. How is it a position of power if you're only there because someone allows you to be there? Then it's not a position of power. Then the person who allows it to happen has the power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

>>135480752
this is nonsense.
At the core of any democracy, every person has the same political power - which is one vote.
But the accountability for a politician's actions once they are voted into power is inversely proportional to the size of the constituency because of dispersion problem.

Powerful states would be more democratic than a powerful federal government.
In the same way that Sweden is more democratic than a EU government would be.

>>135474070
>Given this, what exactly is the argument from the Left against dissipating power back to the states?

Gay marriage and marijuana would be illegal in states they will never go to

>>135483121
In the OP:
>The more concentrated/centralized the power, the more prone it is to be controlled by special interest.
To me that is a nonsensical statement, because power is to control.

>>135476332
>What exactly is the argument for keeping power at the federal level?
But in this country they do both

>what is pork barrel spending

>>135483507
that is true, because concentrated power makes return on investment on lobbying more attractive, which of course causes more special interest lobbies to emerge

>>135483633
there would be no pork barrel spending if there is no money to spend at federal level

>>135474070
In many cases, from the left perspective state's rights seem to clash with individual liberties. For example, let's consider gay marriage. The left position is "it is, and ought to be, legal at the federal level." The right position is "let the states decide." In the left's view, then, "centralizing" power on this issue and making the federal government in charge of the legal status of gay marriage protects gay citizens in red states from their potentially tyrannous local governments.

File: libertarianculturalmarxism.png (111KB, 393x591px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 393x591px

>>135474070
>>135476141
>>135476301
>>135476332
>>135477871
>>135478076
>>135478219
>>135478264
>>135478525
>>135479846
>>135480057
>>135480752
>>135480907
>>135483121
>>135483317
>>135483507
>>135483633
>>135484501
>>135484714


>Milton Friedman
>literally a jew
> got his start in Neo-con Chicago school at time of (((Irving Kristol))) under the auspices of Fabian agent and President of UC Robert Maynard Hutchins
>Worked for Al Capone/(((Edgar Bronfman)) Gold Seal Liquor company and was used by Capone and associates after prohibition to lobby for decriminalizing opium
>Be member of Fabian Socialist founded Mont Perelin Society
>Cause the 1972 stagflation crisis
>get praised by Ancap aspergers as the right wing prohet of the age without any realization that Austrian School and subsequent movements were literally stacked with Fabians

>QUOTE:


"There really isn't so much difference between the people in the. Fabian Society, people like myself, and Milton Fried man."

Stuart Butler, of Mont Perelin Society, American Heritage and now the Brookings Institute