Who is free? Free for what? In what I write, I differentiate the two approaches as:
The labyrinth-borne sloganeers may claim "big," but that only means a self-important attempt at social-engineering - to "treat" people with one-sided, blunt, systems which also need big tax-money - in addition to the abuse of lives. They yoke the people, to oblige with the same strict set of orders. The varieties of severeity, can be:
The knee-jerk reflex of most people, for protecting themselves, may be to cling to a centralized-excess, e.g: to increase government powers. For example, the year 2002, started as a year of shrunk/strained freedom, after Sept.11,2001. But I may offer the freedom, again. If centralization were necessarily good, we would possibly remain relaxed, but it may hurt, too. "Heroes," when they gather all the power, they may turn out to be the problems, themselves. Therefore, we may prefer un-centralized relief.
We fight to preserve our freedom, while we live in a world, with billions of other people. The existence of the unjustifiably-greedy (bad/evil) "me-too" people is what brings a tension. This is a tip for an armageddon-theorizing, too.
A (free-form) maze, is a framework - with a few rules-of-thumb. Any maze may have a different type of response, in presence of other people. For example,
With a free-form maze/move, it is not difficult to avoid the illegitimate (charlatan) "senior"s, either (with a few rules-of-thumb) - as opposed to the case in a strictly hierarchical, positions-oriented world. Within the labyrinths, it would take a lot of battles to kick the abusers out, and next, you would have to pick your own "ideal" candidate, for that position. A free-form maze, with freedom, is the remedy. Yes, it is.
The rules-of-thumb, as I suggest, were already there, in the first age of Islam (with, the farz & meditation, of Islam) - more than a millenium, ago. I render it with the current-day applications. Although muslim states, since then, have attempted to implement the rules, with big-states, I think the first, was the finest. i.e: It was not only a "pre-empire" stage, which "happened to" congueor the empires. It was the finest - with the rule. Right makes might. After all, the rule was from Allah, whereas any ruler is a mere human. The prophet Muhammed (s.a.s.) doubled as a rule-revealee, and a ruler. That was the first, and that was the finest.
Note: The kharijee people, who were opposed to big-states, themselves had no idea about any system/rule, it appears. They were mere objecters. They assassinated even the fair ruler, Ali (R.A.), the fourth caliph.