One common defense of decentralization is that it helps to protect individual freedom. Advocates make two main arguments to this effect. The first concerns misbehavior by the national government. Under decentralization, powerful local or regional governments can defend individuals against abuses by a central ruler. The second argument concerns misbehavior by local governments. If local officials persecute citizens, the latter can escape by moving to other localities. Because international migration is more costly or difficult, the corresponding safeguard against central government persecution is weaker. I examine both these arguments. The first seems less than compelling because, as Riker points out and as the second argument assumes, what local governments preserve may not be freedom. It may just as well be slavery, indentured servitude, or the abuse of women, children, or ethnic minorities. As for the mobility argument, it requires that local rulers allow their victims to leave.