The solution du jour of the contemporary global economic crisis leads to an inevitable outcome: centralization, which, as Hayek showed, is totalitarian. The pressure to amalgamate during structural breakdown is so relentless that ultimately desperate people look to the same strategies that brought on the disasters to solve them, preferring a cure rather than health. “The problems are so great only the government can solve them,” goes the mantra.
History shows that once the centralizing trend starts, it continues like a hungry tyrannosaurus rex gobbling everything in sight. Unless the jaws of the eating machine are locked shut, every lower entity is swallowed by the one above it until all are in the gut of the Great Devourer. The local is consumed by the regional, which is downed by the sectional, which is eaten by the national, which is gobbled by the alliance, which is gulped down by the international, which is feasted upon by the global.
This is the food chain of centralization.
Presidential advisors become “czars” of this and that, in function if not title. The Greenspans and Bernankes may not have summered on the Black Sea or enjoyed dachas in the St. Petersburg countryside, but they have been as much a “czar” as Nicholas—and probably more so. And somewhere up in the mystical reaches of power someone tops even them. Centralization’s process is always moving up a chain until those who hold power over those at the bottom can no longer see the bottom.
Proponents of centralization, whether Marx or Mussolini, lead the gullible to believe its opposite is fragmentation. “Workers of the world, unite!” shouts leftist Marxism. Hitler hoists the myth of the German Volk, a centralized mass that would rid the world of the messy fragmentation of ethnicities.
Actually, the opposite of centralization is freedom, with all its messiness. In the Bible’s apocalyptic vision, “Babylon” becomes the symbol of the world system, organized without, and in defiance of, the Lord of history. “Babylon” is the final form of global centralization. But the instantaneous interweave of the global system is also its downfall. The commercial interests are stunned, and cry, “Woe, woe, the great city, in which all who had ships at sea became rich by her wealth, for in one hour she has been laid waste!” (See Revelation 18:16-19 NASU, emphasis added.)
The more the tyrannosaurus is glutted, the more cumbersome he is and the quicker his fall. Centralizing everything into the belly of the beast guarantees the death of the whole.
Principle Based Evaluation: If all wise public policy should promote personal choices which reinforce every citizen’s internal self-government then centeralization is counterproductive to true freedom.
For more information on the author, Wallace Henley, go to: http://wallacehenley.com/
Larry Elks
said:
 |
... I once read there is no greater form of leadership than a benevolent dictator. The problem is, however, there is no such animal. Man is not capable of being God. Only God has the ability to have ultimate power and ultimate control.....and be benevolent. And, even with this God chose to give us our freedom of choice. With man, the more centralized the control, the more corrupt, the more freedom limiting. In the same light, Centralization and Freedom are mutually exclusive entities. ANY centralization by it's own definition limits true freedom. Besides, the more challenging and basic question is: Is true freedom necessary, is it what we really want, is it good, is it bad? True freedom means an individual can do anything they want no matter the consequences. I think what we are seeking is a level of freedom within proper boundaries. Then the question becomes, what boundaries: God's bibilical boundaries or man's established boundaries and if so which man? Our problem is we cannot decide on the standards by which we should to live. Politicians (not statesmen)....politicians believe they, in their infinate wisdom, are capable of establishing those boundaries which should limit freedom. Christians believe the gold standard is the Bible. Then the questions become: by what standard are politicians limiting our freedom and by what interpretation of the Bible are you using Mr. Christian? But, the more fundamental question is: How do we define freedom? How much is enough? How much is too little? Until we can answer this question, the basic question, and come to agreement on our own morales and values, we will never be able to accurately address the next level of questions regarding government (centralized or de-centralized) or any of the other societal issues plaguing us. I'm not sure we as a "free" society have the capability or even the interest to tackling this real question. Many of us cannot get by that monumental and challenging question of whether to watch the Weather Channel or ESPN. |
