If Larry really wanted to fight government corruption, he would be campaigning to reverse the centralization of government decision-making power in Washington bureaucrats, returning it to as close as possible to the people who are governed. The people have the most influence over decisions they make for themselves, and less and less as the decision-making power moves to the local community, then to the state, then the elected feds, and by the time you reach the unelected federal bureaucrats, the people have essentially no influence at all. The farther from the people you go, the less individual people get to decide for themselves and the more things are decided by whoever gets the most political favoritism.
Since he shows no interest in moving decision-making power back toward the people themselves, I conclude that he's not unhappy that people (as individuals) don't have enough power over their own lives; he's unhappy that the system he and his Harvard friends have built for the elite to rule The People (as a mass) doesn't yet have as much unrestrained power to do so as they would like.
The problem with this theory is that it is entirely not borne out in practice. Local governments are generally far more corrupt and dysfunctional than the federal government. See, e.g., San Francisco.
Or LA or NYC. American municipalities offer you the full dystopian spectrum. From overburdened socialist welfare state (San Francisco), to repressive authoritarian dictatorships (New York), to banana republics (Wilmington, DE), to post-apocalyptic free-fire zones (Camden). Take your pick!
I agree completely. There are also some great small communities that aren't socialist dystopias. So, yes, I would like to be able to take my pick.
As long as the power of Chicago's socialists is limited to Chicago, you can escape the dystopia that emerges from their absurd policies by escaping their jurisdiction. But if all (US) power can be centralized in Washington, then the same people who produced socialist dystopias in Detroit, Chicago, or San Francisco, will impose them on everyone in the country. I will no longer be able to take my pick by leaving their jurisdiction, and that's what they define as "progress."
No, they are not generally more corrupt; they are very often more corrupt. They are also very often less corrupt. There are far more of them with the consequent variety and---best of all---the smaller the corrupt locale, the easier it is to leave it for a better one. Nobody forces you to put up with San Francisco's government, but if Washington government becomes just like San Francisco, that's a MUCH bigger problem.
In which case you've completely devalued citizenship in a community/place entirely. <sarcasm>Obviously if my favored candidate for Mayor of Haifa loses the election, I should quit my job, sell/rerent my apartment, and move to Yerushalayyim!</sarcasm>
Except that, no, wait, my job, my dwelling, my friends, my family (if I had one), and my community are all tied down to the place I already live.
Implementing a "free market in local governments" has the massive negative externality of entirely destroying people's capacity to build roots and communities by staying in one place, and effectively turns the population into permanent ideological/lifestyle/economic migrants.
The ability to vote with your feet is one of the most valuable checks and balances on government. Few people leave after one lost election, but if the government gradually becomes toxic, it's better to have alternatives nearby than to have to leave the country. And the more easily you can leave a bad government's jurisdiction for a better one, the harder it is for it to just do whatever it feels like doing to you, and the more likely you are to be able to stay where you are.
I find your example ironic, given how many Israelis are in Israel because they made a choice to leave their jobs, dwellings, friends, etc., in one society to join another. Few did so after one lost election, but most Israelis I've talked to have been very glad that they had alternatives. Many would have been happier if they had had a good alternative closer to home, but those back home who preferred large-scale governments deliberately eliminated the possibility of local alternatives.
I find your example ironic, given how many Israelis are in Israel because they made a choice to leave their jobs, dwellings, friends, etc., in one society to join another. Few did so after one lost election, but most Israelis I've talked to have been very glad that they had alternatives. Many would have been happier if they had had a good alternative closer to home, but those back home who preferred large-scale governments deliberately eliminated the possibility of local alternatives.
More right-wing nonsense! Because a government large enough to provide health-care is automatically LARGE ENOUGH TO COMMIT MAJOR GENOCIDE AND DRIVE YOUR WHOLE ETHNICITY OUT OF THE COUNTRY!
We had better implement a system of permanent migration in the American style to make sure nobody suffers genocide by letting everyone flee to everywhere as soon as someone passes an income tax!
Or, you know, we could, unlike you, decide to base our politics on something other than childish, paranoid anarchist hysteria and actually implement an effective democracy that lets us run our lives without having to hoard guns and gold bullion in the family caravan.
The problem is that you're making an ideological statement. You may well be totally correct, but it's also possible for someone to disagree that decentralisation is good, while still supporting the same end-goals as you.
As a small example, I actually think that USA would be better off if you had a much stronger federal government and reduced the states to minor importance. However, my opinion doesn't count much because I live in New Zealand!
Since he shows no interest in moving decision-making power back toward the people themselves, I conclude that he's not unhappy that people (as individuals) don't have enough power over their own lives; he's unhappy that the system he and his Harvard friends have built for the elite to rule The People (as a mass) doesn't yet have as much unrestrained power to do so as they would like.