[Image: https://fs.blog/2018/03/hannah-arendt-totalitarianism/]
Is there a way of balancing central planning and individual rights?
[asked by 
Response: There is a very fine line between dictator and securing the liberty of others from those who could be corrupt or cruel. Central planning means take more power away from the local governments and putting the power onto the federal (central) government. I think that taking some powers away from the local governments to ensure that that power cannot be abused and so that that law can be held equal across the country. One state cannot imprison people for something that is perfectly legal in all the others. It can also help protect from discrimination from state to state. Like gay marriage, it became a federal right so that people's marriages could be recognized in any state no matter what the local governments take on gay marriage. However, there does need to be a balance, as having all the power within the centralized government can lead to a dictatorship and oppression where there was equality and protection. I do think that there can be a balance and I think that it is important to have that balance so that power doesn't fall anywhere too far on the scale. Leaving it up all to the states has, historically, not worked (Articles of Confederation), but as we have seen with multiple dictators, too much power given to one person/administration can lead to many issues (like Germany in WW2). It is a very careful balance that must be maintained for the safety and liberty of all peoples within a country and one that is so necessary to fight back against oppression and cruelty. Honestly, by having 0 central/federal government, there isn't a lo that would stop a local government from becoming a central government or totalitarian government for its own area/state.