What are you even talking about? You're the one who keeps changing whether you're talking about scope or centralization every 5 minutes...

You're complaining about the state the US govt is in, which grew from a leaner, more decentralized system, but you're suggesting the solution is to keep going along that path, while also complaining that attempts at decentralization (that aren't happening) are hurting you

@Beemann
> You're complaining about the state the US govt is in, which grew from a leaner, more decentralized system,
Again, no it didn't.
> but you're suggesting the solution is to keep going along that path,
Not even close.
> while also complaining that attempts at decentralization (that aren't happening) are hurting you
Again, I have no idea what conversation you're participating in. I have only ever mention centralization in response to you bringing it up.

1) It did, but you can continue to be delusional. Standing army, 10a violations, 2a violations, 4a violations, etc
2) It is, unless you're now arguing for my position and against your prior one. You're arguing for more government, when more government has been the trend
3) The one where you're continuing to ignore that scope is just the terms of power consolidation, which exists along the centralization/decentralization spectrum. You complain about a trend that doesnt exist causing you grief, while supporting the one that does exist, and is likely the actual cause

@Beemann
1. Lol. Imagine you calling anyone else delusional. At it's founding the US had anti-sodomy laws, drug laws, abortion laws, all manner of "blue laws", chattel slavery, obscenity laws and so on and so on. Hell, most states had official state religions. The idea that the US at it's founding was some AnCap paradise is something only a retard who hasn't read a page about our history would think.
2. Except, again, see point 1. You're just flat out lying.
3. I'm not "ignoring" that. I'm mocking it because the claim is laughably wrong, as I already demonstrated. The fact that you have to keep lying should be a really good indicator to you of how braindead your position is.

why are you arguing with him? just no knock him agent Kevin

Kek.

alphabet boiz are ready since beta o'cuck dropped out

we still have danielle Crenshill in the Repubs as backup thank Goy

>ancap paradise
Point to where I said it was
States had their own systems. Now those systems are largely federalized. This is an example of centralization. You pointing out state specific religions *proves my point*

Lol. Not even close.

by the way I cant find the vid of Crenshaw getting groyped

If anyone has it

Only if you accept your batshit assertion that centralization = authoritarian. Which I don't because I'm not a retard.

Ironically, neither do you...

I didn't say that all centralization = authoritarian, just that the absolute extreme example of centralization would be a complete dictatorship, while the absolute extreme of decentralization would be no government at all

all the amendments are stupid. if you have an ar15 you're basically a terrorist

This isn't hard to grasp if you can count past 2

that's why you all should give them to Kevin and i

we are the only ones to be trusted

That doesnt support your point

Lol. So you're literally illiterate? Explains a lot.

>you dont understand your position but I do
Is this tumblr?

You were talking about communism as one central system or many smaller subsystems. Round made comments about warlords and such

> that thing I said didn't mean what the words said because waaaaaaaaah
It may be.

How do you get "centralization of any sort = authoritarianism" from "you can try to set up a totalitarian state in a smaller system but it's harder if you keep scaling down"

And...? If you can have local totalitarianism, then it proves that scope and centralization are severable...

No it doesnt, it just isn't a smooth curve from 0 to 100. All it boils down to is who has power and over what, no?

> How do you get "centralization of any sort = authoritarianism"
Because you said exactly that, multiple times, you lunatic.

> who has power and over what, no?
Lol. So fucking dishonest. Those are two entirely different questions.

What you have power over is necessarily a factor of the amount of power you have

I don't follow. What do you mean by that?

Most voters have (very limited) power over a very big thing but don't have much power.

Well, you can have total power over some things but not others, or you can have a lot of power over a small group, but less over a large one

That's my point pretty much.

Amount of power and subject of power aren't necessarily related.

But they are. Are you more powerful if you have total control over one person, than someone who has moderate control over 100 people? It depends on what you can get accomplished, no? So a moderately successful populist could have more power than a feared slave owner

Even though he has less control over each component part of his power base

put the commies in prison. simple