Originally Posted by tonton
As I said in the previous response, the bigger the representative democracy, the better it defends human interest, and the less likely that evil will be done. This idea is especially vital with regard to human and civil rights and liberties.
Unfortunately history is not on your side here. In fact, many current day (in the U.S. and other places) indicators point to some very valid reasons for concern about the consolidation of power into one, larger, all-encompassing entity. If the U.S. federal government doesn't currently scare the shit out of you, I'm not sure what will. Oh...but it will be better
because the "good guys" will be in charge. That's all well and fine until it isn't.
At least if the state I live in (e.g., Illinois or Arkansas) is behaving in an evil way, I can much more easily move to state that isn't. That becomes much harder the wider the scope of the evil entity.
Simply stated, it's a fallacy to say that the a bigger
, more widely encompassing, stronger entity with a monopoly in the use of force, coercion and violence over an ever larger area and more people is less
prone to being bad, wrong or evil than a smaller one.
P.S. Another more subtle issue here is your appeal to "civil rights". Civil rights are rights bestowed by states/governments on those within their geographic boundaries. Implying that said state/government could say you no longer have a given civil right. Meaning that if something like Muslim prayer (using one of your examples) is considered a "civil right" then there is nothing to say that it cannot be taken away because you've vested the determination, definition, enforcement, protection and provision of this right into the state.
What you really should be appealing to is "natural rights". Natural rights are rights people are born with and have regardless of what a ruling state/government may or may not say. Locke would say that these are, simply, life, liberty and property. Everything builds upon these (including the straightforward supposition that you have no right to infringe upon these others' rights of life, liberty and property as well as the straightforward implication of a right to trade/exchange and congregate).