Rebuttal, kind of.

Hmmm, how do you evaluate how corrupt a state is?

Civil rights, school quality, crime rates.

Rightwingers want states rights only inasmuch as it gives them what they want and keep federal taxes low.

This is true, but if you take out "states rights" and the word "federal" while putting in "federal rights" and the word "state" it applies to left-wingers and left-liberals, too. (With the caveat that uniformity isn't guaranteed, and some do want a slight raise in tax.)

Also the entire point of representative government is that an intelligent elite representative, elected legitimately (i.e. peacefully agreed to by the population), can make decisions for the rest of the population that are good. So why would it matter whether the population is or isn't educated, assuming their elected officials are good?

A sufficiently educated populous can weed out blatant attempts at scamming a population, and poor representative options, while an uneducated one can't. While the idea that an uneducated people could elect intelligent, well-meaning elected officials is nice, it's not particularly the case.

I agree though that mass media has a distorting effect on the ability of representative government to meet the needs of its citizens, and I don't have a good answer for how to fix it. I'm skeptical though that the answer is "centralize more."

(This bit continues a little on the premise of the last one:)
If you're ever in the Midwest outside of Chicago/Omaha during election season, turn on the most popular local news channel. Wait for the advertisements. Blatant lies under the guise of free speech about political candidates is all you'll see, and trust me - not civil ones. Very good at perspective-turning, and usually are so bad that there'll be rows of them fighting and saying the previous one was a lie. As much as "Mass Media" seems like the worst thing, it's by far the local channels that do worse. Simply banning political advertisements would fix a substantial amount.

If you're in New York or California or Chicago, or most major (top 15-ish) cities in the US, really, national news will likely show something about your area every once in a while, and the local channels have enough eyes on them to where advertising space is generally far too expensive for political ads, and far too profitable to risk showing controversial content.

Being less educated means you're more likely to fall for these advertisements (it's actually fairly common to take them at face-value), which leads to you voting in people who refuse to, or even go to the extremest sense of the reverse, improve public education while simultaneously bringing harm to the populous who voted them in.

Cycle perpetuates, etc.

People can claim as much as they want that it's Facebook and everything ruining political discourse but there's a substantial volume of The Local News™ that'd love to object to that.

In this case, the answer is absolutely "centralise more," though not on behalf of the government, on behalf of the media. If your space is too valuable to run ads that would fuck up your viewership numbers, you don't run ads that would fuck up your viewership numbers.

Right-wingers aren't really federalist these days.

They've really just changed what the common interpretation of the word means.

I remember seeing some quote on Twitter about how we take "the majority" as a sacrosanct legitimate consensus, akin to "divine right" in ages past. Was doing some reading about it this morning (important considering I'm likely going to be helping build something to advance this philosophical position), and I'm still undecided.

The majority is often right, to a point. Majority rule fails with lack of scale. This is why the State system is a bad thing; with a lack of scale all that happens is that a few bad actors can ruin everything permanently. This problem might be countered with resetting and reforming each state from the average of the Union as a whole every decade, though I'm not sure there's a feasible way of achieving that.

Majority rule at least seems to be a "fish in water" philosophical stance, as in most people would implicitly agree that it is correct/good.

It depends on the scale of majority. Right-wingers like small majorities (why they're such big fans of the electoral college, and think California is wrong on everything - the true majority very much isn't on their side, so they scale it down until it is.) Left-wingers like majorities on a hyper-macro scale, which isn't necessarily the wrong thing, but tends to shoot them in the foot depending on the absolute scale of it (ala, the EU occasionally doing some things that more Socially Democratic countries dislike for being too conservative.)

"Inalienable rights" are good.

No one really can agree on what those are; for example, in the Constitution, Second Amendment rights. (Along with arguably pretty much every right in the Constitution when touched by any CAPITALLETTERACRONYM Act.)

[Link to Sen's Paradox]
This is bad though because it assumes rational preferences
aka the fundamental assumption behind economics that I think is almost completely bullshit

I agree with the second bit, not so much with the first. Economics is a great guiding line, though it won't get you exactly where you want to be. Intuition and assumption generally tends to better; and the economic field (along with any belief of "rationalist" thought occuring in the real world) tends to ignore cultural aspects of what's rational.

Think I'm gonna buy a soda stream instead of land

Might be wiser to buy a Juicero; eventually a museum is going to need them.

need acreage
gonna buy loads of currently uninhabitable siberian steppe
Then have it all confiscated by the Russian government when it increases in value
after i am convicted by kangaroo court of corruption

Cringe and britpilled.