They are back. Here is another reply from The Society of Problem Solvers… “Also you can have a constitution to address the things mentioned (like property rights). In fact that is exactly what America was - a decentralized (for the time) system with a constitution. We need it further decentralized now and made transparent in order to fix it. It has become fully corrupted.”

Now, here is my reply… Your statement has a true premise; however, you then overreach as expected. So, let’s look at definitions that truly matter. First, let’s start with Decentralization, which pushes decision power downward (federal to state to local), which is what the current President is advocating. I trust him more than an ad hack committee on the internet. Now, back to the definition. Decentralization pushes this power downward, so fewer people control more things.

Next up, we have Federalism; this, my friend, is a system of shared sovereignty in which national and state governments each have real powers. Madison called the federal powers “few and defined,” and state powers “numerous and indefinite.”

So what do we need as a people? We need Transparency, where the public has visibility into rules, spending, and decision processes (not “everything is public,” because courts, diplomacy, juries, and security work can’t function that way).

Next, we do need to go after corrupt politicians who use public power for private gain (bribery, self-dealing, patronage), as well as “soft” forms like regulatory capture and favoritism. This must be addressed and soon.

You said, “That is exactly what America was.” And yes, America did begin with a more decentralized structure under the Articles of Confederation. But the Founders replaced it because it was too weak to secure common defense, stable finance, and uniform commerce. The Constitution was a deliberate move away from extreme decentralization toward a stronger national structure with checks and balances. The design goal was not “maximum decentralization.” It was balanced power. So, again, I disagree with you on those points.

Madison’s core warning wasn’t “central power exists.” It was that power will be abused unless you build control mechanisms: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” and “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

Hamilton stepped up to argue for a strong executive branch to enforce laws and protect property, saying: “Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” essential for security, “steady administration of the laws,” and “protection of property.

So, historically, “America = decentralized with a constitution” is incomplete, but I do not believe you understand that. The U.S. is a federal republic that intentionally mixes decentralization with national capacity.

Next, you said, “We need it further decentralized now…to fix it.” At first glance, Decentralization can limit corruption by reducing the payoff of capturing one center of power. That logic is real, and it fits the Founders’ suspicion of concentrated power (and Montesquieu’s famous point that power tends to expand until checked). Nevertheless, your points on decentralization are not a cure-all. Because decentralization can also multiply capture points: instead of one captured institution, you can get fifty. Decentralization increases local machine politics, making smaller jurisdictions easier to dominate through patronage networks. Also, creates accountability problems. The operators know how to use the phrase, “It was the state.” “It was the county.” “It was the agency.” So we are back to square one.

The Founding-era remedy wasn’t “push everything down.” It was a layered competition with separated powers, so no single faction or branch can easily rule the whole. That’s why Madison spends so much ink on controlling faction and channeling conflict through institutions.

So, I would say a more precise claim would be, decentralize where local variation is safe and measurable; centralize where uniformity and coordination are essential (defense, national market rules, constitutional rights enforcement).

Then you said, “Made transparent…to fix it.” I agree that Transparency helps, especially around spending, procurement, conflicts of interest, and enforcement patterns. But then you make the mistake of those who do not know how things work. Because your call for “more transparent” needs boundaries. The same Founding logic that assumes faction and ambition also assumes that strategy, diplomacy, military planning, jury deliberations, and many investigations require confidentiality to work. (Even Brandeis’s famous federalism point about states as “laboratories” assumes experimentation can occur without wrecking the whole system, not that every internal deliberation is instantly public.) So, your plans fail again.

A more workable transparency standard is public rules, public money, public outcomes, with narrow, reviewable secrecy for genuine security and due process needs.

Next, you said, “It has become fully corrupted.” This is the part where your claims fail as factual claims because you're totalizing, and your statement becomes non-falsifiable as written.

If “fully corrupted” were literally true, you would expect routine outcomes like courts functioning only as pay-to-win, elections having no meaningful uncertainty, laws being unenforceable except for bribes and property rights existing only for insiders.

Dear sir, that is not the United States in any absolute sense. Franklin’s warning still applies; a republic survives only “if you can keep it.” That line is a caution about civic maintenance, not a declaration that collapse is complete.

Washington’s Farewell Address also fits here because he feared that factional spirit would become “baneful,” turning citizens against each other and opening the door to manipulation. That’s degradation pressure; again, that is not proof that everything is already “fully” lost.

Finally, let me make myself clear… America was designed on federalism and the separation of powers, not pure decentralization. So you are wrong there. Decentralization can reduce certain corruption risks, but it can also spread and localize capture. The Founders’ answer was checks, ambition against ambition, and institutional rivalry, not a single lever.  Transparency is vital around money and outcomes, but “maximum transparency” can break governance functions that require confidentiality. Your “Fully corrupted” comment is an evidentiary claim. You need to make it measurable or scale it back (for example: “corruption risks have grown in X domains, shown by Y indicators”). You provide no evidence, only hearsay. So, dear sir, that is where we stand, at odds yet still free under this current system, for now. Under your system, we would not be free for long.

Please like, share and follow to support this channel.