That's a good point. I think however that proponents of economic decentralisation would argue that it requires 'less' centralisation of power than economic centralisation (assuming centralisation of power can be quantified).
How is this so? Classical liberals argued that the fundamental duty of government was protecting its citizens' lives and property rights from each other and from foreign aggressors. This would largely take place through the courts: if someone attacked you, or stole your property, or rose up and took over your factory, you could sue them, and the State's only role would be enforcing the court's judgement.
This thus would lead to a relatively decentralised power structure, with most power lying in the courts via their interpretation of the constitution / 'natural law' (a bit like English common law) and the executive having relatively little influence.
From this it follows that arguments for any economic structure other than "an economy the structure of which is purely determined by what occurs when the State only protects property rights" necessarily require more centralisation of power, as the State would be required to do more than just protect property rights.
Assuming that by some intrinsic property that "an economy the structure of which is purely determined by what occurs when the State only protects property rights" is likely to be a more decentralised one, then arguing for a centralised one thus entails arguing for greater centralisation of power.
Of course, this ultimately depends on the exact form the property rights in question take, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that for any particular set of rights, a State based solely around defending those rights would involve less centralisation of power than one based upon ensuring the existence of a particular economic or social structure.
'Victimless crimes' are an example of this: they wouldn't exist in a purely rights-based legal system as there'd be no parties whose rights were violated by these activities, so such things as the immigration department and the departments required for the war on drugs simply wouldn't exist.
How is this so? Classical liberals argued that the fundamental duty of government was protecting its citizens' lives and property rights from each other and from foreign aggressors. This would largely take place through the courts: if someone attacked you, or stole your property, or rose up and took over your factory, you could sue them, and the State's only role would be enforcing the court's judgement.
This thus would lead to a relatively decentralised power structure, with most power lying in the courts via their interpretation of the constitution / 'natural law' (a bit like English common law) and the executive having relatively little influence.
From this it follows that arguments for any economic structure other than "an economy the structure of which is purely determined by what occurs when the State only protects property rights" necessarily require more centralisation of power, as the State would be required to do more than just protect property rights.
Assuming that by some intrinsic property that "an economy the structure of which is purely determined by what occurs when the State only protects property rights" is likely to be a more decentralised one, then arguing for a centralised one thus entails arguing for greater centralisation of power.
Of course, this ultimately depends on the exact form the property rights in question take, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that for any particular set of rights, a State based solely around defending those rights would involve less centralisation of power than one based upon ensuring the existence of a particular economic or social structure.
'Victimless crimes' are an example of this: they wouldn't exist in a purely rights-based legal system as there'd be no parties whose rights were violated by these activities, so such things as the immigration department and the departments required for the war on drugs simply wouldn't exist.