> The difference between centralisation and decentralisation. States can fight back against the federal government's requests in a way that is simply not feasib

> The difference between centralisation and decentralisation. States can fight back against the federal government's requests in a way that is simply not feasible for almost any person. I don't understand this idea. Usually there is more variance in the behavior of lower-level governments, while higher-level governments will be closer to the mean. If there is a real risk that the federal government will abuse its power in a certain way, many state governments must already be abusing their powers that way. And the same also holds between state governments and local governments. The smaller the administrated population, the more likely the government is either really great or really bad. But because the government can more easily do harm than good, lower-level governments are worse on the average. It can be argued that while the average state/local government is worse than the federal government, your government is special. But that is only plausible if there are persistent cultural differences between your area and the rest of the country. And I don't mean differences in political opinion but in things like corruption and respect to the rule of law. That could happen if there is little immigration from other areas to your area, or if immigrants must live there for a long time and prove that they fit in before they gain full rights. Which is why the sanest level of government is usually the one corresponding to citizenship.