The Decentralized Path to Free Society
As the Greek Philosopher, Plato, once remarked, “If you do not take interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.” It is my opinion that this most especially applies in modern society as we are so quick to brush off the complications that stem from the introduction of modern technology. If you consider how many times you automatically select “accept all cookies,” or how many “terms of agreement” you automatically consent to simply because you need access to that specific app you are giving unlimited access to your personal data such as: item preferences, political stance, familial ties, and geographic location over and over and over again. Although you may follow the common mindset of “I have nothing to hide” therefore you find no qualms with allowing companies or governmental organizations to funnel your data I would warn you to consider the long list of historical representations of corrupted power. While it is true that some politicians, leaders, or dictators may enter the political hemisphere with the hopes of creating positive societal change it is equally true that as a human race no one is immune to corruption, all it takes is one simple shift in values and suddenly a selfless, constituent centered leader, becomes an all controlling oppression based ruler. If you believe that you are the exception to corruption and therefore at least one of your governmental leaders will be too, you should consider the fact that power does not always lead to corruption, everyone has an individual vice like power, that leads to inevitable corruption you just have to find out what yours is. The question is not whether the elected official will be led to abuse power, the question is when. As discussed in this week's lecture this is where the problems with centralized power begin, as long as ultimate power lies in the hands of one individual, general societal freedom is at risk. The greater the spread of power through decentralization, the more likely it is that society will be free from corruption as corruption must spread across all the nodes of power inorder for all of society to suffer.
When we think of power we often limit ourselves to considering governmental entities to represent power which is where the true danger lies. By limiting our understanding of corrupted power to one entity we allow ourselves to overlook corruption in all aspects of our society, thus decentralization is a generalized theory that can be applied to companies, schools, governments, finances, etc.. Just as discussed in the lecture with the case of Twitter, who chose to suspend the account of Donald Trump, following tweets they deemed to be insightful of violence, this supports the idea that freedom is threatened when one entity is incharge of dictating society's actions. As Twitter moves to censor certain accounts based on a perceived “threat of violence” this allows one central board to control the media messaging essentially giving them permission to discreetly limit the exposure of the opposing political party. As corporations and government entities become more intertwined, particularly through acts of cronyism the threat to individual freedom is only further at risk as large sums of promised money or biased legislation lead to increased censorship. Through the decentralization of power we can ensure that corruption is either continued or eliminated as although corruption may exist within certain states, if you so choose to move then you are free from corruption.
An Opposing View
Now although I believe there is great merit to the argument I have made above I would like to consider the argument for “decentralization” in all aspects leading me to play devil's advocate in this next section of text. I would first like to question the logic surrounding the aforementioned “Twitter case” as I could argue that although Twitter did claim to support freedom of speech and expression why should they be faulted for their decision to censor certain accounts. Just as our constitution has provisions surrounding our first amendment freedoms, particularly freedom of speech, shouldn't Twitter be allowed to censor harmful speech whenever they deem necessary as it is their right as a private company to treat their platform how they wish to? Furthermore, if the role of leaders is truly to provide the best outcome for the common good then wouldn't you expect a moral leader to step in and limit harmful subject matter in order to contain the implications that harm is allowed within the nation? I am not suggesting that what Twitter decided to censor from Trump should be considered “harmful” I am simply asking you to consider whether deciding that Twitter can not control the contents of their own platform should be considered an infringement of freedom in its own right as you are placing limitations on what private companies can choose to support. If you truly want decentralized power shouldn't every platform be able to decide what they promote and what they censor individually?
I would further like to question the feasibility of decentralization of power and federalism as I currently see no real way to implement this into our current U.S. governmental structure. As mentioned in this week's lecture as Dr. Steve Trost was talking about cronyism, essentially it can be assumed that each state would lead their own government with an elected Governor presiding over the state leading to 50 different forms of leadership ultimately limiting corruption. It was further implied that if you did not like the corruption of power within your current state then you could simply just move to another state that better reflects your values. Although I agree that in an imaginary world this could be implemented and would work wonderfully, I ultimately would argue that as fragmented as our current political system is, this separation of power would ultimately lead to the formation of new territories or nations, leading to potential global conflict. Additionally, as long as the rest of the world continues to operate under a centralized society we will still feel its effects just as discussed in the lecture with the monetary limitations of centralized power. This makes it even more impossible for us to thrive in a decentralized or federalist society as until the entire world can become accustomed to this form of government we will never truly experience its positive effects.