What is your main idea then?

I'm asking you why are you not ok with decentralizing the state if you dislike monopolies

I am to an extent, I would prefer for the economy to just run itself however there would be times when the government should intervene and the government is better suited to do that if it is not completely decentralised

I support some Decentralisation however the State should still have the power to stop monopolies

why couldn't the intervention be done on a local level, by the local authority so that there can be competing models within the country itself. Surely you are for competition?

Because local areas don't have the power to prevent a National Monopoly like Google for example

why not/

just ban it

Because they simply don't have the influence, A group of largely decentralised counties will not have the same influence as a largely centralised state

what do you mean by influence?

there is lots of counties today that ban FB

you don need to be ultra powerful to just ban something

They can't influence the economy enough if they can just effect it in their local area

well, but there is a lot of local aread

areas

if 30% of them decide to ban something, surely it's gonna have an impact

and if the ban was a good idea

then those areas are gonna see positive change

Your assuming that they would all agree to stop the monopoly

they don't have to

as I said

banning something is extremely ez

If 30% decided to ban it would have an effect sure, but the monopoly would still have substantial power

but not on their territory

I guess

so there would be room for alternatives o grow

thus we don't need a monopoly on violence, Enlightenment state to fight monopolies

so why do we need one?

I think you've got me on the economic argument however i still maintain my belief that the state or local county should have a right to violence for the simple maintenance of order

Why give so much power to a central authority? Surely that increases the likelihood of tyranny.

What checks and balances will be in place on that authority?

At least, if one local gov is tyrannical, you can move to the other pretty ez

and thus avoid the tyrannical regime, just by moving from city to city

Well that could just be stopped by elections and the second amendment

why not have both?

What happens when local authorities ignore the constitution?

Why are you assuming there is a constitution?

<:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

"and the second amendment"

https://youtu.be/DI0mQzHWlaE

Kokesh was thrashed