“Those powers” is left intentionally vague because it is an open (and endless, and contentious) matter of debate amongst liberals, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, inter alia, as to what the acceptable list of of “those powers” is.

Regrettably, you don’t get to be that vague and algebraic when we have a specific context to speak in. To borrow from the language of programming, this is a variable for which you must specify a range of values or have them defined for you by existing arguments.

You have also pointed out the problem of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Fewer people to watch means less watchers … (oh dear, both people and watchers are countable nouns — inconsistent syntax following a Latin phrase … tsk tsk)

On the substantive point, this is so, but one should not make a fetish of it. As I noted, those attenuated human bonds require that we all keep an eye out or appoint people qualified and willing to do so when we can not. We now know that one person’s malfeasance can easily cast harm over a wider area than is immediately obvious and so we must be very careful to specify those acts which should be restrained, benchmarked, guided and utterly required.

But all agree on the principle that if you grant a power to government, it will be eventually abused. So best to grant as few powers as possible and be constantly vigilant for what is granted.

You have also pointed out the problem of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. I don’t think there is a complete solution for this problem, so it becomes a matter of risk management. Fewer people to watch means less watchers, so let’s have less government with less power. Slightly different chain of reasoning, same conclusion.

Does that clear up my original sentence for you?

Why “doubt” it? This is a text based medium. He said:

The actual solution is never to grant those powers to any government, anywhere, for any reason, in the first place.

I grant you that “those powers” is imprecisely specified. In context though “those powers” could refer to “the powers exercised by state governments”. State governments in this country are for the most part, where the rubber hits the road. “[T]hose powers” include OH&S which were so brutally ignored over the insulation kerfuffel. Hmmm

Make sure that power is dispersed as far as possible and where it exists it is heavily handcuffed and has strong oversight.

“Handcuffed” and oversighted by non-existent entities rendered non-existent for fear of nongs being in charge …

the power to tax incomes is handed (or at least spread) to both the state and local governments to reduce or eliminate the revenue disparity between the levels of government.

So you want more complexity and red tape? You’d like rival tax regimes over the borders rather than less government overall? Good grief. Strange days indeed.

The actual solution is never to grant those powers to any government, anywhere, for any reason, in the first place. Then it doesn’t matter how or where it was going to be applied.

is what Jacques actually said.

“The lesser evil still is for an informed citizenry to keep nongs to a minimum and away from serious power.”

To me, serious power by its very nature attracts “nongs” (as our current leaders and their possible replacements may demonstrate well). The solution to me then becomes simple – do not have any concentrations of serious power at all. Make sure that power is dispersed as far as possible and where it exists it is heavily handcuffed and has strong oversight.
In your specific thoughts on our government structure I do not see that a strong central government combined with incredibly weak local government will achieve this. What I would prefer on the particular topic raised by Jacques (or others) is simple – the power to tax incomes is handed (or at least spread) to both the state and local governments to reduce or eliminate the revenue disparity between the levels of government.