I think he's off base. Some of the things he discusses are happening, but I don't believe they are happening for the reasons he suggests. The simple fact of ever-increasing cross border contact and business arrangements makes some form of larger government on a global scale necessary. This is driven by practical concerns such as contracts, labor, movement of people, banking and credit, international purchasing, etc. I think its naive to believe that there is no need for any form of representative government to deal with these issues.

Do Welch's laments about shrinking importance of county government mean much when many counties are effectively ruled by city government and automobile travel makes the size of counties easily transcended?

Problems I see where Welch's concerns ought to give pause:

1. What does an international body like the UN mean as a democratic institution when many of the member states are not themselves democratic? (Think Libya chairing the Human Rights committee).

2. How relevant is the Security Council so many years after WWII?

3. What acts as a check and balance to international organizations be they representative groups like the UN or appointed bodies like the WTO?

And what about monetary policy? Wouldn't a global currency make things like the artificially low Yuan or the artificially high Dollar things of the past?

The kind of isolationism that Welch seems to promote hasn't ever done any nation any bit of good. The US was not a powerhouse or even a particularly good or developed place prior to the 20th century. His rose-colored glasses are apalling.

His suggestion to limit federal debt makes some sense to me, at least on a gradual scale. Everywhere I have travelled where the government is more involved in the economy than in the United States (this includes China), the government's involvement has been a negative rather than a positive. Places where the government held significant holds (like Russia) are much worse off than the US. I say this as fact, not conjecture.