Centralization and the Production Rights Factor

In "Democracy in America" (George Lawrence translation, 1969, 1988 edition) Alexis Tocqueville carefully considered both advantages and disadvantages of centralization and decentralization, and how these organizational patterns play out differently, depending on the citizenry involved. How to account for the fact Americans were able to utilize decentralization more effectively, than was often the case for Europeans?

...in America, the people are enlightened, awake to their own interests, and accustomed to take thought for them.

One likely reason, is that Americans at the outset were used to taking a full array of production rights for granted - rights which brought the costs and definitions of their local environments within reach of their abilities and resource capacity. Small wonder these citizens were so engaged! Again, Tocqueville (page 91):

I also think that when the central administration claims completely to replace the free concurrence of those primarily concerned, it is deceiving itself or trying to deceive you.

A central power, however enlightened and wise one imagines it to be, can never alone see to all the details of the life of a great nation. It cannot do so because such a task exceeds human strength. When it attempts unaided to create and operate so much complicated machinery, it must be satisfied with very imperfect results or exhaust itself in futile efforts. 

It is true that centralization can easily succeed in imposing an external uniformity on men's behavior and that that uniformity comes to be loved for itself without reference to its objectives...Centralization easily imposes an aspect of regularity on day-to-day business; it can regulate the details of social control skillfully; check slight disorders and petty offenses; maintain the status quo of society, which cannot be properly be called either decadence or progress...In a word, it excels at preventing, not at doing. When it is a question of deeply stirring society or of setting it a rapid pace, its strength deserts it. Once its measures require any aid from individuals, this vast machine turns out to be astonishingly feeble; suddenly it is reduced to impotence. 

Notice from Tocqueville's argument, how centralization "excels at preventing, not at doing", which can impact both long term growth and economic dynamism. For our purposes here: What do citizens or special interests find especially worthy to "prevent" in the first place, and to what extent do they use government for such purposes? Only consider how this process has played out for healthcare in general. How much of government "assisted" quality healthcare has actually been an unconscious exercise in preventing ("excess" supply side), in lieu of doing (responsive markets)? Sadly, "excess" supply side prevention has placed additional burdens on most personal, corporate and governmental budgets in recent decades.

Perhaps governments will proceed with more caution in the future, when deciding whether to limit production rights to "special" citizens and special interests. Once extensive educational standards were imposed on healthcare, many had little choice but to abandon healthcare practice to those better prepared - financially and otherwise - to guarantee quality product for consumers.

If freedoms are restricted for lower income levels, how can freedoms be realistically maintained for upper income levels? After all, once governments elect to impose supply side limits in knowledge and skill, many policy makers feel they have little choice but to somehow follow through for citizens, by extending additional welfare benefits to ameliorate those losses. Once losses in production rights fade from collective memory, citizens come to expect governments to "protect" them in ways which often simply aren't possible.

Twentieth century healthcare is just one arena which holds ample historical examples, how not to build dynamic marketplaces for services capacity. What governments gain in financial support from special interest groups which seek to limit the use of knowledge on their behalf, governments nonetheless lose in terms of the wealth potential of citizens in aggregate, who presently lack means to fully contribute to what has become a major component of national GDP.  Might citizens regain the capacity to become "awake to their own interests, and accustomed to take thought for them"? Let's hope so.