Central authority is bad. The bias should be for freedom. And
Central authority is bad. The bias should be for freedom. And without a central authority, there are lots of little authorities, and we learn which ones to trust.
Hear now the words of John Stossel, a voice of modern times who spoke with a spirit older than kingdoms: “Central authority is bad. The bias should be for freedom. And without a central authority, there are lots of little authorities, and we learn which ones to trust.” In these words is not mere politics, but the timeless struggle between power and liberty, between command from above and choice among equals. They call us to remember that the human spirit was not made to bow forever to one throne, but to live in the open air, guided by discernment and trust.
For central authority is like a great mountain pressing upon the valley. It casts a shadow over all, and in its weight, it crushes the growth beneath it. Where one voice commands all, diversity withers, and the many songs of the people fall silent. But where freedom reigns, many voices rise. There, instead of one unyielding authority, there are countless smaller ones—families, communities, markets, guilds—each guiding in its own way. From among them, people choose, learn, and discover which leaders are worthy of trust.
This is no new teaching. The ancients of Athens knew it, when they dared to build a democracy in place of a tyrant’s rule. Their polis flourished not because one man commanded all, but because the people were free to weigh and to judge. Though imperfect, their experiment showed the strength that comes when authority is dispersed, and when men are allowed to rise or fall by the measure of trust they earn.
Consider also the birth of the United States. The people, weary of a king’s hand across the sea, declared that central authority had no rightful claim over them. They wrote a Constitution that divided power, scattering it into branches and states, so that no single hand could grow too heavy. It was not an age without error, but in that dispersal lay the seed of resilience. And so the republic endured, for it chose the path of freedom, where the people themselves could test smaller authorities and decide whom to follow.
Yet we must not imagine that life without a central authority is without burden. Many small authorities can confuse, deceive, or compete. But herein lies the test of liberty: to learn discernment, to measure by wisdom, to grant trust only to those proven worthy. Just as a traveler may encounter many guides along the road, yet must choose carefully whom to follow, so too in freedom we must cultivate judgment. The absence of one ruler does not free us from responsibility—it places more of it upon our own shoulders.
O children of tomorrow, take this lesson into your hearts: do not beg for chains in the name of safety. Resist the temptation to hand all power to one central voice, for it may bring order for a season, but at the cost of the soul’s liberty. Instead, embrace the labor of freedom: the effort to question, to choose, to test, and to trust only the worthy. In this struggle lies not only liberty but dignity.
Practical is this wisdom: support small communities, honor local voices, seek wisdom not from one throne but from many counselors. When faced with competing authorities—whether in governance, business, or daily life—ask who has earned your trust by their deeds, not their words. And most of all, guard your freedom, for once surrendered to a central power, it is seldom returned.
Thus, Stossel’s words ring with ancient truth: central authority weakens, while dispersed freedom strengthens. The bias must ever be for freedom, for it is only in freedom that men and women learn, grow, and discern. And when they learn whom to trust, they build not empires of oppression, but societies of resilience—where the soul walks upright, and the spirit of man is unbroken.
NNhat
I see the appeal of decentralization, but I’m unsure about how the trust-building process would work in practice. If there are numerous smaller authorities, can we truly trust them to be fair and unbiased? How do we develop a system for evaluating which authorities to trust, and what safeguards can we put in place to prevent exploitation or inequality? It seems like a delicate balance that would need careful thought.
TTNguyen Thi Thu Thao
I agree with the idea of freedom being the central bias, but I do have concerns about the practical implications of having no central authority. With so many small authorities, how do we avoid the potential for abuse or conflict? It makes me question the role of trust in a society that doesn’t have a clear governing body. Can we trust multiple smaller authorities, or does this system only work in theory?
NQNhu Quynh
This quote resonates with a belief in personal freedom and distrust of central power, but it also raises a deeper question: if we have multiple authorities, how do we navigate them effectively? In the absence of a central authority, do we risk fragmenting our society into groups that may not share the same values? How do we ensure that freedom doesn’t lead to chaos or unfair power dynamics?
HTLe Thi Ha Tien
The idea of decentralization is appealing, especially when we consider the concentration of power in central authorities. But can we really trust a variety of smaller authorities to have our best interests at heart? Who decides which ones to trust, and can that decision ever be entirely objective? This idea of trust being decentralized is intriguing, but also leaves me with questions about accountability.
N7NguyenDamHung 7A6
This quote seems to challenge the idea that a central authority is the only way to maintain order. While I appreciate the value of freedom, I wonder if this model can work in practice. What happens when these smaller authorities conflict or have competing interests? How do we decide which one to trust, and is that process always fair? It’s a complex balance between freedom and trust.