<span>The central government could provide forces to help the Georgians in case the Indians attacked any of their settlements. In addition, the government could help to forge treaties with the Natives to make sure all the lands and their boundaries were respected.</span>
There are good arguments on both sides as to when and how fast to reopen the economy. In my view, the answer will vary state by state and industry by industry. There’s also an enormous amount of uncertainty as to exactly how to determine the optimal policy. In that environment, there’s a great advantage to having these decisions be made at as local a level as possible. Thus, while I suspect that Sweden’s current policy is not optimal, that Nordic country is doing a great service to Europe by providing evidence on the consequences of an alternative policy path.
Giving too much power to any one person is dangerous, especially when that person might be influenced by political considerations that go beyond the best interest of the country as a whole:
That’s not to say Trump’s views are necessary wrong; rather that the procedure he uses to reach decisions is not reliable. Thus I’d still favor local control even if in one particular case you could convince me that the views of the person who happened to be president at the time were superior to the views of the average mayor or governor. In the long run, competition between states will produce better governance than central planning.
- It corrupts the people minds. We should not believe on some spirit to save us, we should act on the things we want to achieve.
- It promotes division and confusion. Too many religions, too many contradiction, cause too many killings.
-Not everyone believes that some spirit exists.
