Part 1:

You said: “A government could have full blown power over almost everything THROUGH DIRECT DEMOCRACY and I may be okay with it, but as soon as you put one human to make a decision on behalf of a lot of people without legitimate consultation then thats a problem, so when I say centralization I mean one person or a group of people= who have a disproportionate amount of power.”

To clarify, I only accept centralization under certain very specific conditions. I will support centralization only if the result of that centralization happens to be more libertarian than the result of decentralization would be in the same circumstances. I am, first and foremost, a libertarian, and only support decentralization when it has libertarian results. I want things to be done through direct democracy as much as possible, but not if the things that get done are anti-libertarian and bad in themselves. A fascist policy that is anti-libertarian is just as bad if it is passed through local direct democracy as it would be if imposed by a single tyrannical despot. I support the results that are most libertarian. It was direct democracy in Switzerland that banned the construction of mosque minarets. This is a fascistic policy that I can’t support, even though it was voted in directly by the people, not through representatives. The mosques in question are private property, and the building of minarets doesn’t harm anyone, so the libertarian policy must be to allow mosques to have minarets. Furthermore, as someone who has somewhat of a background in Christian fundamentalism, having been influenced by theonomy/reconstructionism (a movement to implement biblical law in America) before becoming an atheist, I am very aware that there are religious folks in certain small towns that would actually make “sodomy” a punishable offense, so that a person accused of sodomy would be publicly flogged if not executed. That policy is unacceptable and fascist, regardless of the manner in which the law is formed. If a town decides to execute homosexuals or drive blacks out of town, that policy is fascist and unacceptable, even if it was formed through directly democratic processes at the local level. Insofar as more centralized power prevents such anti-libertarian policies, I think those forms of centralization are justified.

On the other hand, I adhere to the distributist doctrine of subsidiarity which holds that all matters should be handled by the least centralized and smallest body capable of efficiently dealing with it. If a matter can effectively be dealt with on the individual level, then no one else needs to get involved. If it can be dealt with at the family level, then that’s where it should be handled. If it can be handled by the local community or municipality in an effective way, then no larger or more centralized authority should get involved. However, this is not pure decentralism/anarchism. I believe that governments should exist for the purpose of maximizing human liberty, with liberty being defined as non-domination. If two families are feuding and come to violence, I think local government ought to get involved. If a massive army starts marching into town, then federal/central government ought to get involved. When it comes to issues of civil rights, if the local governments fail to appropriately guarantee those rights to all people, then more centralized levels of government are right to intervene. Also, this comes into play with things like corruption in local government institutions. For instance, there was a cop in my city who killed and injured several people because he was intoxicated while on duty and crashed his cop car. The local police were all working to cover up the fact that he was intoxicated. There was local corruption, so the federal government stepped in and took over the investigation to ensure that justice was done. In such instances, I am for less local and more centralized levels of government taking over, if they can effectively deliver justice when local government fails to. If, however, the more centralized levels are less effective at delivering justice in any instance, then the more decentralized/local level action is to be preferred.

Thus, my position is more pragmatic. I don’t think that decentralization is either good or bad in itself; same for centralization; I don’t think that “more government” is necessarily good, nor that it’s bad; and I don’t think that “less government” is necessarily good nor bad. What is good is whatever happens to maximize liberty and general wellbeing, and what happens to maximize liberty/wellbeing will differ from time to time, varying with “particular circumstances of time and place.”

I am for decentralizing any thing as soon as more local/decentralized/directly-democratic levels of government are able to effectively deliver justice on that particular thing. If you can educate people through public schools, get them to learn tolerance for other cultures, and thereby eliminate bigotry through education, then local direct democracy won’t lead to fascistic policies. Once you thoroughly educate the rural populace and eliminate the bigotry that causes rural folks to support bad policies, then it is perfectly fine to allow rural populaces to govern themselves directly at the local level once more.

You said: “As for those small communities which you say should be forced to not be racist, homophobic etc. well there are basic foundational human rights that the vast majority of us agree upon. Any microcosm of a community should have the communal decency to enforce that. Honestly, they will always exist, and if that community blacklists themselves over things that do not directly affect their survival then they are just hurting themselves.”

I know of a town in Missouri, where the majority are members of a fundamentalist sect. That town would execute homosexuals and trans people if they were allowed to make their own laws, and they would probably do the same to black people. This doesn’t just affect the members of that community, but the members of neighboring communities as well. If a homosexual is driving across country and happens to stop in a town that has the death penalty for sodomy, then that person will become a victim. The town has no right to impose anti-homosexual laws.