I believe we will experience a decentralization of sorts, which is good, but depending on your local effects, it may be bad. The impulse to nationalism seems good, given that this seems to be a non-militaristic nationalism. But nationalism alone is no guarantee of success. The large modern state, if allowed to exist, will continue to attract parasites just as assuredly as flames attract moths.
So, a return of family estates, passed down through time, means a return of decentralized loci of power. Family money fueled the enlightenment. Government money keeps fueling these retarded nutritional studies out of Harvard, and other recapitulations of the so-called validity of the government's actions.
Now, what we are encouraged to see is the demise of family estates, and the pitiable nature of certain trust fund babies. Understand something- this is a problem for them, not for society. I don't even know how true it actually is. It could be more of a myth.
But as people are allowed to build family wealth, these families become biological targets. The ambitious turn from trying to get their daughters married to doctors and lawyers, to marrying into this or that particular clan. And the long slow process of breeding that was so effective at raising IQ rates in Europe before the 1800s begin to come into effect again.
Ending estate taxes would be a first step in a somewhat uncertain process of releasing ourselves from the modern state, and returning a governance more strongly attached to property rights. If you've listened to Lew Rockwell, Jack Spirko, and/or about a half dozen people with a certain mindset, you'll they are anarchists, and they've got this statement- anarchy means there are no rulers, but it doesn't mean there are no rules.
Technically, that's true, but only if you are talking about the word anarchy. It is a definition of the word, not of them. They are for private property. If you are for private property, but you don't like the modern state, then what you want to achieve is many rulers, and few rules. The rulers are, of course, property owners, who decide what happens on and with their property. Consider that what we have now is much closer to their definition of the word anarchy than what we want to achieve- we now have a huge bureaucratic class. They do not take the mantle of 'ruler', rather they make rules as 'experts.' They use the conceit of 'oppression' to explain inequality and then pretend like there is a legitimate and objective reason to redistribute assets based on this oppression.
And they keep making more rules everyday. Then they hire more of their own kind to keep track of all these important things that they have been writing down.
Comparatively speaking, the number of rules in a private property society would be trivial.
And another thing that would happen is that the people who were good at administrating property would slowly increase their holdings, while those who weren't so good would probably end up looking a lot like peasants. But the IQ research shows even they improve over time, as the wealthy used to have more children, many of whom would marry into the lower classes, bringing the genes for higher intelligence with them.