I'd consider that the issue isn't centralisation so much as that can be very useful, but that rich/connected people are not penalised for breaking laws.

It's absolutely bizarre to me that a convicted felon can run for president and apparently win. It's not surprising to then see that position be abused for personal profit and petty revenge.

Centralising research efforts can make a lot of sense if you want to gather the top people to work on related projects (e.g. CERN)

▲

chickenzzzzu 4 days ago | parent [-]

What you are describing seems to me to be a direct side effect of centralization. If the USA was just one country in a sea of two hundred roughly equal countries, the majority would quickly say "we will not allow that person to be a leader".

But since the USA is basically the world's richest and most powerful entity, the rest of the word begrudgingly tolerates the leader that has somehow come to power, simply because they need to keep the money flowing. There's no other spigot in town.

▲

ndsipa_pomu 4 days ago | parent [-]

I disagree - we have a general principle around the world that a democratically elected "leader" is the result of the votes from the population and thus should be recognised at representing those people. The problem is when democracy is subverted with various methods such as gerrymandering districts, making it harder for some demographics to vote, removing voter registrations of certain demographics, misrepresentation of facts by the mainstream media etc.

It is a real problem with countries declaring "democratic elections" which are mere shams of democracy.

	▲	chickenzzzzu 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		And why was it possible for that rigging to occur? It sounds like a cop out, but the answer is once again centralization. The operation you described requires money, time, power, coercion, and so on. Isn't that a result of a two party system funded by a few hundred insanely wealthy individuals?