Kev: Zachary Fontes thanks for your reasoned response. 
while I donât agree with a lot of what you are saying, I understand why you are saying it and can see where youâre coming from. I too donât believe in âfightingâ the government. I hold the same belief in gritting and bearing it till you can escape, or change it through appropriate means. (Though I wouldnât restrict myself to saying âlegalâ means, since thatâs pretty arbitrary. Whatâs âlegalâ can be pretty bad sometimes. I would say biblical means.) I hope you know I am not an advocate for anarchy or revolution in a physical or violent sense. I think we can change the world through ideas and invention. I think we agree on those points. (To some degree).
For me, this is why I think itâs important to maintain ease of geographical mobility and escape from abuse of power. I know you understand that, because youâre using that logic to explain the need for multiple countries. The reason I say it hurts you is because a larger, stronger national government decreases the peopleâs mobility. Centralizing power means more people are hurt when that power is wrong or misused. Much like a sickness, it is easier to handle when it can be isolated to a smaller area. You canât stop a sickness by spreading it all over the country. (By sickness I donât mean government, I mean corruption). Logically, a corrupt city or state government is easier to escape than a corrupt national government. Wouldnât it be? Or am I missing something here?
I donât want to assume, but it feels like youâre saying the national government wouldnât be corrupt because God says they wonât. I donât believe thatâs what the Bible says. If you think it does, Either the Bible is wrongâŠor you are as I can probably cite 1 or 2 examples of corrupt governments, if you need them. 
What, besides the Bible saying so, prevents national government from being corrupt? (And I know you have your yearly elected 7 kings in your government laid plan. But I mean in general, how does centralizing power to people outside of your own geographic area, help the people?
Currently we have people in cities making laws that negatively effect farmers and people living outside the cities. (As a very specific example) Currently we have people advocating for a ban on guns saying, âwe need a law that bans guns because I canât think of any reason anyone needs to own a gunâ, while there are people in rural parts of the country who use guns at tools and they are needed for their livelihood. To what degree is it better to not have representation?
This is what I donât understand. That you would rather abortion be legal nation wide, than a state have the ability to stand on principles held by its local population. I donât think morality should be based on the whims of the crowd. The nation will not always be moral and they will not always elect moral leaders. I think being able to say, âas for me and my house, we will serve the Lordâ is important.
