@hansw@mastodon.social sure id be happy to.

It is the same reason I am pro state rights int he USA over federal rights. In short, as you concentrate power into fewer people who have power over a greater number of people then you enable tyranny and corruption to flourish, both as intentional tyranny from those seeking to take advantage as well as things that may be perceived as being for the greater good, but in fact just oppress the minority, an effect thatis refered to as "a tyranny of the majority".

for example arguments that reflect a "Tyranny of the majority" thinking are the very sorts of logic that was used to justify continuing slavery towards the end of its life as an ideology. People argued that to end slavery would cause economic and social chaos to the point that we could even run farms and people would starve and die, that it was justified to continue slavery since black slves were a minority of the population dn thus the greater good was invoked. Obviously rubbish.

this is ultimately the problem when you try to apply democratic systems across large swaths of area and across varied cultures and societies that each have their own internal sense of morality and law. It tends towards laws that of the best interest of 51% of those with a vote and is willing to let the other 49% suffer "for the greater good"

The other side is that more power in fewer hands means its easier for a single corrupt person to do alot more damage.

I believe in distributed governance, local-first governance. Coalitions are fine whereby trade or even military assets might be handled at a collective level, but any such arrangements should be limited in scope and power and ultimately allow for its members to withdraw at their leisure. It certainly should never take the form of a law making body whose laws will supercede those of the local governments.