[sayfer bullets]

It would seem to me, although I am not much for anarchists, that the reasonable thing being promoted here is decentralized government, not anarchy.

This used to be a mantra for Republicans, until they realized that a majority of voters are perfectly happy to eat from the trough.

Restraining federal government means more than trying to hold budget growth under 8% per year. It means stopping and even reversing the intrusive trends of the last 30 years. That's hardly anarchy. State and local governments can and should do a better job of administering programs of all kinds. The problem is that state governments have become a piglet on the teet as well.

[ctdonath2]

It would seem to me, although I am not much for anarchists, that the reasonable thing being promoted here is decentralized government, not anarchy.

No, the thread's issue is promoting anarchy as a viable form of government. There are a lot of people who actually believe that laws themselves are the problem - not just reduce the number of laws, but eliminate them altogether - and if we just let anarchy reign we'll get everyone happily working together and sticking to contracts.

[Architect]

The problem is that state governments have become a piglet on the teet as well.

Seems to me that you contradict yourself... And local governments are, in some ways, the worst of all.

There is one truth about decentralized governance. States and localities have to compete with each other - which places a limit on them.

This is precisely why everything centralizes. They hate limits.