Central Government.

Is Central Government the way to go? Or Decentralized?

If by centralized you mean one office, then yes. I think its important to have a chain of command.

Are you talking about politics or just about specific books?

If it's about books, I just never heard of these.


But to answer your question (at least the way I figured out)

Central Government is always the way a dictator runs his buiseness and to centralise a country's power is leaving the government's head (in that case: The President) always having a say on just about everything going on.

Decentralising the Government often results in every states having a different set of rules.

IMHO Centralising the government is dangerous because it concentrates too much political power (And in your case it means the same for the Military) and it keeps the press from reporting what's really happens.

I think I agree. lol

The Opposition wrote:

If by centralized you mean one office, then yes. I think its important to have a chain of command.

Are you sure about that Oppie?

Good topic Lee. Ok, centeralized government is obviously a huge threat to democratic principles, and decenteralized government is what some people call "one step short of absolute chaos." But believe it or not, there is a definite -though very fine- line distinguishing the 'middle ground' the two share. The United States at its founding is of course a good example of this, though by this time we have strayed enormously from the fore-fathers' vision of the republic. As for the topic question, I'll take decenteralized government any day.

One office as in one office in power as in the United States government. Sheesh, maybe I got the term wrong.

Come on Oppie, pick up the debate here.

I'm not going to debate you if we agree on something DUH.

Agree? If I'm correct, you said you believed in Centeralized government, because it provided a "chain of command." Whereas I said I'd take De-Centeralized government any day... I can't see how you think we agree on this...

wellll then apparently we dont to...a degree. Ofcourse there are disadvantages too both. It really depends on the men(men or women) who have the power...

Centralized in the right hands...can provide and sustain order. It can also allow exploitatation of the order...and thus create a dicatatorship.

DEctralized...well, it eliminates that possibilty of one group of poeple having all the power, yes. But..like you said it can be refered to as absolute choas. If its decentralized into...lets say each state has its own indepedent goverment. You'd get squabbles between the states over what "nationality" really means, and numerous other new issues that would arise...

Government is all about the poeple. Poeple compose it, poeple(most of the time) live by it, people are controlled by it(indirectly) And so I think its reasonable to say that, governmentel variations and their uses vary with the poeple that make them up. For instance, you've got a moralistic president. He would most likely veto a bill that proposed abortion to be a common right and that would make it legal in every state. Whereas, a liberl or 'secular' president may hold abortion as a basic civil right of a woman. thus, the laws, although not entirely, are depedent on the men in power and their personal views. Which is I dont think centralized or decentralized governments have a numerouc amount of advantages or disadvantages over each other....

Power does not equal Justice. Top-heavy government only becomes corrupt, when the power it weilds stands on its own, and isn't held responsible or accountable. It infringes the People's God-given rights, and becomes an extreme, tyrannical power, even if it began as a republic.

ok i'm not following you...