>A local authority is able to tell people to do as it says. It is even more efficient at this than a central one, as it usually tries harder to obtain a consens

>A local authority is able to tell people to do as it says. It is even more efficient at this than a central one, as it usually tries harder to obtain a consensus (people willing to be involved are, nobody has to remain a mere cog) because it cannot coerce as efficiently as a central gov (for various reasons, one being that transforming locals into guards of other locals is difficult, another that it is more easy to escape from a little group...). You're responding to something else. The point I made is that you WANT to coerce people into vaccinating their kids, into educating their kids, etc, etc. Those should not be things where one crosses their fingers and hopes that people get convinced into doing that. >The common goal is to survive and to pursue the quest for happiness, I doubt it is better set by a central government. Sorry, are we even talking about the same thing here? I thought the conversation was about healthcare/vaccination/infectious diseases/. >As for the approach (the way to tackle the problem), having groups choosing various ways is a way to discover what works or not, and which new challenges are raised by each approach. When everybody everywhere applies the same approach, everything may break simultaneously if it is not the perfect approach (perfect approaches are pretty rare), and progress towards new solutions is slow. Okay, but nothing about having a central government precludes you from running local experiments w.r.t new policy. I believe RCT economics received a nobel prize either last year or the year before that.