States are centralized democratic governments. They are just smaller than the federal government. If you want to make the argument that having more people under a government is better then do you advocate for a single worldwide government? Why not go all the way?
> This doesnt always work perfectly but it does work more and more if broader sections of the populace spend more time being educated about policy and advocating for things they believe in.
I don't follow how having a centralized government means people are going to be more educated on policies? If the majority of politics happened on a state level why would people be less informed than if it occurred at the federal level. It seems like you are advocating for a more informed populace, which may be beneficial, but it doesn't seem relevant.
>See civil rights as a primary example.
While this may be an example right now, it wasn't always the case.
The federal government (pre civil war) required states that did not have slavery to return runaway slaves back to slave states.
If you want an example of post civil war, look at the Japanese internment camps.
Like I said in my previous post, I don't think it is really possible to determine if rights have actually been expanded since the federal government started getting more involved.
The federal government constantly violates rights.
> In contrast decentralized governments without the failsafes of things like the bill of rights to prevent them from descending into tyranny tend to do just that. Whether its the tyranny of the majority in one region or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, thats a quick route to having human rights trampled, oligarchs put into place and anti-social movements gain power.
I think most, if not all, of the states have a constitution that protects the rights of the residents. Why are you suggesting otherwise?
Maybe they aren't perfect, but the same can be said about the federal constitution.
> This may become less of a risk as education becomes more widespread in a populace and indeed statelessness is an admirable ideal but I dont think we are there yet technologically or ethically and certainly not in the 1790s.
What do you mean by statelessness? Are you advocating for anarchy? That hardly seems like a way to protect rights.