Centralization vs Decentralization

A very important question relating a possible future ethnostate is if it should be centralized with the central goverment apointing the head of goverments of states and with little to none autonomy on local laws or by the opposite the local goverments should deal with most of the laws leaving to the central goverment the minimum power such as defense and foreign policy or a middle ground.
On my personal opinion i think that centralization is bad and that having one man and his clique rule over all a country disregarding the local zones is bad, the best way to go is a very decentralized nation like it was during the early years of the USA.
Also it should be debated which form of goverment is the best, i personally advocate for a "Militia's Republic" a country where only people who are in the militia vote, a militiaman is any gun owning, trained, white male who is serving or has on his local militia or in a national army.
I have seen many esoteric threads, or about happenings but little to none about the way on how a ethnostate should work, this i believe must be carefully debated, as the ideas that born in Holla Forums usually find their way into the bigger Nationalist sphere.

The best system is one that allows people to vote for programs with money, not heart-warming thoughts. To answer the question of whether Soros should be killed for example, just see if it gets enough money. There's no need for debate between members of something called a Supreme Court. It doesn't matter if the result is objectively good or bad. If the people want it and fund it, it happens. Period.

On the one hand, centralization generally makes it easier for kikes to take over. On the other hand, if George Washington had been a dictator with total power, the Holocaust would've actually happened.
In any case, I definitely like your idea of a country being run by the men willing to shed blood for her.

Soros & co. can literally print money at will, and you want money to rule everything? The idea is absurd.

i'm all for one person leading if the nations best interests are being kept, and not screwing the country over for profit and personal gain like happens now

A law stating a maximum amount could be made to prevent one rich person making all the decisions.

I think that's what got us in this mess. Everybody is for delegating the hardest job to someone else. Responsibility/accountability for security and welfare has to come back to the people. One guy ruling made sense in superstitious times when an omniscient being supposedly advised one person, but its ridiculous now.

Gun owning policies will raise the price of guns due people wanting to stringhold votes. Also, a vital flaw in your system is that military training does not equate to political knowledge.

This is basically direct democracy with a money twist.

Here's what my thoughts (it's just a pasta I made):
My thoughts on democracy is that I am opposed to a democracy as it equates the nation to the majority, lowing itself to the largest number, giving ideals a merit based on quantity as opposed to quality. The voice of the nation, such as ideals, are to be set in merit, for this, I believe in a republic.

One would ask what this criteria for merit would be. The easier answer is not what it would be, but how it has come about. Democracy sets its position in defaulted universal suffrage, that the goverend have the right to say in which how they are goverend, which is inherently illogical as it implies that each man is equal in caste. One would not call an experienced politician compared to the man who holds the position of a clerk at his local bank equal, and when this ideal of universal suffrage for the goverend is taking to its logical conclusion, a boy the age of 4 is equal to the men whom have built businesses from their bare hands. From this, we must set one merit that is age. Modern medicine today argues the human brain does not reach its full maturity until the age of 25, from this we set the threshold at the age 26.

One mark of merit in the past has been wealth - particularly land. The quarrel merit has with wealth based criterias is that not every man is motivated by wealth and to claim that the wealthy are better suited in the political arena than the politician due to their accumulated economic worth is foolish, as it leads to nothing based in merit but an unneeded value on the commodity of land, artificially raising its worth, which too in itself leads to merit rejecting the notion of universal suffrage as it lowers it to the means of the majority, equating ideals based on numbers and not the ideal's worth itself.

In this, I, along with the age threshold, suggest a aptitude test that is able to prove one's merit worthy of parttaking in the suffrage process, with the expectation being of military service.

bump

>white
If it worked for Rhodesia it will work for us.

I hate to say so, but unfortunately Washington did not, to my knowledge say that.

I like this idea, only those willing to actually put their life on the line for the country get a say in how it is run.
Could you imagine communism weaseling it's way into such a nation?
I can't.

We had such idea fielded already, it was called Roman Republic/Athenian democracy/Terran Federation(Starship Troopers).

The problem with such a system is that its too efficient and inevitably right-wing and no parasite would thrive in such environment thus they prevent such structure from ever being considered - universal franchise and "rights" are enemy of proper liberty and responsibility that one would derive from such system.

Well ask yourself "How did those filthy kikes hijack America in the first place?".

The answer is they took advantage of the free and open nature of American society as it was before the Jew truly cemented his control. We did not have tight government control of our educational institutions and they slithered in. We did not have adequate racial laws banning Jews from banking or doing business and they slithered in and built up their power and influence brick by brick.

A strong centralized nationalist goverment with vigorous anti-Jewish policies is the only way to root out the viper and stamp it out for good.

So educational merit? This is basically what I suggested but with an aptitude test. But I say have the merit education based aptitude test and not merit based secondary education system in my opinion because 1. college is shit now days and means nothing; 2. this will encourage more people to take on college debt and waste four years of their life to gain voting rights.
I think wealth merit is absolutely shit as I said.
Sure.
YES
Pretty confident übermensch Whites can make any system work.

Meant for

I think a centralized system needs two things to work effectively: good communications (a given in the modern world) and social cohesion. By social cohesion I don't necessarily mean ethnic uniformity but more a common interest among regions; for instance Germany has been a decentralized country for most of its existence.
I think for most of history empires have been limited by the first requirement, although the second one was met. Today I think it is the opposite.
On the one hand we have highly centralized countries like the UK and, to a lesser extent, Canada. They are very efficient since only the centre needs to agree on something for it to be done. The UK is ruled by something like 400-500 MPs. Foreign relations are easy and the law is the same all across the country. However regions who have different preferences about policy will resent the domination by the centre. e.g. Quebec, Scotland, problems with EU monetary policy
On the other hand you have a less centralized system like the US where California is free to pass bizarro laws about product labelling and each state has its own criminal law. This means interests are more closely represented, but now intra-national commerce is more costly and the central government is challenged constantly by the regions.
Ultimately I guess it comes down to how willing you are to trample on regional interests in the name of efficiency and smaller government. Personally I prefer a more centralized system.

One of the more sensible things Plato says in the republic that a government like this (which he calls 'timarchy') will tend to evolve into a money-driven/oligarchic society instead. Timarchy requires all men to participate in society; most men are more motivated by money/prestige/power than by notions of duty, so quickly men will begin to seek money in a timarchy

Merit based on quantity is what made Google great before they went into the sjw brainwashing business. The more a link to a website was shared on message boards, the higher the site's page rank went up. This is a better system than the educated elites lalaland stuff which fails constantly due to bribery, threats, and assassinations.

This is a false dilemma.

Degrees of centralization are meaningless: what truly matters is the ability of the decisionmaking organs to manifest situational awareness and situational recognition, then act efficently.

And you don't think centralization bears at all on a government's ability to act "efficiently"?

Newly centralized structures seem to behave properly because the people who established them are actually motivated to fulfill the duty for which they were established but they always end up decaying. A government needs to be flexible in terms of centralization and the idea that a system that is established in a time of crisis to address a need should last forever should change.