tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9279394.post115781939481940084..comments2023-10-06T08:53:14.731-04:00Comments on Eternal vigilance: Strike the Root: Decentralism vs. Rational MarketsRicketsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02579799843541826447noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9279394.post-1158069785260946252006-09-12T10:03:00.000-04:002006-09-12T10:03:00.000-04:00Re: the increased risks in centralization -It seem...Re: the increased risks in centralization -<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that centralization was not a likely outcome of free (or more nearly free) markets. It may work that way for a while now, as our culture is the product of our upbringing, but when you look back 100+ years, there was a very strong streak of provincialism. You didn't trust outsiders much, if at all. And this makes sense in free markets - you can't gauge your risk with strangers, while you can with people you know. You also have social factors that come into play with people who are in a given community (the least of which might be public embarassment).<BR/><BR/>This provincialism has been distorted by the state in one way, and demonized in another. First, states have capitalized on provincialism by promoting nationalism. This disconnects provincialism from its foundations, weakening it in some aspects, while strengthening some of its deleterious aspects. Furthermore, states (especially the U.S.) have successfully linked provincialism to racism, such that provincial "red-necks" are commonly associated with racist attitudes.<BR/><BR/>So I don't see centralization as a natural outcome of freer markets - centralization is a creature born and raised by centralist states. Unfortunately, some of the cultural bulwarks supporting de-centralization have been removed, so a free market instituted immediately might, in the short term, result in increased centralization.quasibillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01541454892654928186noreply@blogger.com