Federalism

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To keep our debating chamber alive I suggest a new debate about the benefits and evils of federalism and of its counterpart, centralism. Depending on who you ask, we are dangerously moving towards uncontrollable chaos or towards and evil dictatorship.

Who is in favor, who is against and obviously, why?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

To keep our debating chamber alive I suggest a new debate about the benefits and evils of federalism and of its counterpart, centralism. Depending on who you ask, we are dangerously moving towards uncontrollable chaos or towards and evil dictatorship.

Who is in favor, who is against and obviously, why?

First?  I must respectfully ask for a formal definition of federalism and centralism.  And, pertaining to what?  Utilities?  Food production? Distribution of goods?  Health care?  Government?  All or none of the proceeding?

Thank you.

[Swatopluk]

Over here it's three main levels: Bund (federal level), Länder (states), Gemeinden (local level, cities/counties).
The distribution of powers, responsibilities and revenues is constantly shifting.

Lawmaking has different categories: zustimmungspflichtige (consent requiring) and nicht zustimmungspflichtige (not consent requiring) Gesetzesvorlagen (bills). The representation of the Länder, the Bundesrat (~senate*), has a say in the former but not the latter. The federal parliament, the Bundestag (~house) can under certain circumstances override a no by the Bundesrat.
There are no competing versions of a bill but the Bundestag votes on a bill and then, if it has a majority, sends it to the Bundesrat for their vote. If they agree too, then it is sent to the Bundespräsident for signing. He can only procrastinate signing but not refuse it (no veto power). But he is one who has the right to call the Bundesverfassungsgericht (~Supreme Court but different in some important details), if he thinks that the law violates the Constitution.

*but not with senators elected by public vote. It's essentially the governments of the states, resp. a number of representatives from it including the prime ministers.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

First?  I must respectfully ask for a formal definition of federalism and centralism.  And, pertaining to what?  Utilities?  Food production? Distribution of goods?  Health care?  Government?  All or none of the proceeding?

federalism
Political system that binds a group of states into a larger, noncentralized, superior state while allowing them to maintain their own political identities.

Centralization/centralism
In political science, the concentration of a government's power - both geographically and politically, into a centralized government.
--
Every country or group of countries (like the European Union) has a number of laws/directives that involve all the territories (ie in the US the federal laws) while others involve local laws be those at the state/province/county/city/municipality/etc. There is usually a complicated dance regarding laws and jurisdictions that frequently ends up in conflict because a central power (ie centralism) wants to impose their jurisdiction over a local power (federalism) or vice versa.

To some, local powers are too parochial or too inefficient to determine standards or laws, to others central powers are too retired to understand local problems and/or desires.

My debate idea is to see if one is better than the other and/or for which elements one is superior to the other.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

First?  I must respectfully ask for a formal definition of federalism and centralism.  And, pertaining to what?  Utilities?  Food production? Distribution of goods?  Health care?  Government?  All or none of the proceeding?

federalism
Political system that binds a group of states into a larger, noncentralized, superior state while allowing them to maintain their own political identities.

Centralization/centralism
In political science, the concentration of a government's power - both geographically and politically, into a centralized government.
--
Every country or group of countries (like the European Union) has a number of laws/directives that involve all the territories (ie in the US the federal laws) while others involve local laws be those at the state/province/county/city/municipality/etc. There is usually a complicated dance regarding laws and jurisdictions that frequently ends up in conflict because a central power (ie centralism) wants to impose their jurisdiction over a local power (federalism) or vice versa.

To some, local powers are too parochial or too inefficient to determine standards or laws, to others central powers are too retired to understand local problems and/or desires.

My debate idea is to see if one is better than the other and/or for which elements one is superior to the other.

Thank you for the clarification.

You may paint me as "centrist" with regards to the Basic Rules:  because I think that the laws should apply equally to everyone, regardless of where they live, who they are or how much money they control.

To that end, a set of "Basic Rules" governing everyone is a Must, I think (aka, something akin to the US's constitution-- it literally is the basis for which all other laws spring from, including local ones).

However, an exclusively central government is too bogged down with national interests, and is apt to ignore local needs-- and thus will choke the locals with needless red-tape.  I'm thinking of the USSR system; it was intensely centrist, to the point that sometimes the local situation broke down completely.

Thus, a federalist system, within the framework of a national standard, is superior and is certainly more flexible on the local level; able to respond to and meet strictly local concerns much more rapidly and effectively than a strictly centralist system.

I guess you could say, I think a sort of hybrid of the two is the best course of action, based on the above arguments.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

In the end is a compromise but the question is where do you lean most? (where is beagle's rant about Brussels? ).

[beagle]

(where is beagle's rant about Brussels? ).

It's not so much fun now UKIP get a bigger share of the vote than Labour round here; I've become mainstream.

For the record I consider the EU as centralism masquerading as federalism; sneaking ever-increasing powers under the "acquis communautaire". If they've ever give any powers back to the member countries then I must have missed it.  Just as worryingly, I see it as the logical successor to the French Jacobin tradition of the intellectuals deciding what is good for the masses, then imposing it from on high.
The peasants vote the wrong way in a referendum? Make them keep having it until they vote the right way, then work out how to abolish referenda. Worst of all, it's now impossible to listen to Beethoven's Ninth without thinking of lies, corruption and waste.

Thanks to Blair/Brown messing up the rebate talks the EU will cost us around £250 a household next year, "negotiated" in return for Common Agricultural Policy reform that anyone else could have told them the French would never let happen.  Incompetence is the most charitable explanation for that; if Blair becomes EU Lord President Eternal, darker suspicions will arise, though fortunately the French wouldn't stand for that either.

I feel better now.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

In the end is a compromise but the question is where do you lean most? (where is beagle's rant about Brussels? ).

Depends on what part of the whole.

If you're talking about national defense, I'm centrist all the way.   Same for foreign trade; making that federal/state level would be a disaster.   Same for monetary standards, engineering standards, communication protocols, and anything that needs to be consistent across the spectrum.

On the other hand, having education *not* set at a national level, but at a strictly local level has many advantages:  it permits different educational methods not possible with an all-national system.  And exploring these methods has already uncovered superior ways of teaching than what is traditional.

National police would be really bad as well:  the police *need* to live in the community they are watching over.  This way, they have a vested interest in their jobs: it is literally protecting their own families as well as the families of others.

Electric untilies *ought* to be de-centralized.  Especially with the new technology coming on-line now and in the near future.  In fact?  It ought to be-- by law-- a co-op venture among the participants, and the participants *alone*.  Ownership of utilities by outside (not local) forces ought to be a capitol offense....no trial, either..... <eyeroll>  But, it would be permissible for any number of local co-op groups to get together and form a sort of "super" co-op, so that they could afford to purchase/build large hydro projects.  Otherwise, these would never be built, except as "make work" huge national projects (aka Hoover Dam).   But, I see that the generation of power eventually becoming so distributed, that each home/building contributes a bit to the whole, with solar-electrial panels, and wind towers placed where practical, all tied in together like nodes on the internet.   Heck, if there is surplus power, you can even pump water *backwards* over the dam, at your nearby hydro-electric plant, for later use...   Add in local co-generators running on either natural gas or hydrogen, add in fuel cells running on the same; eventually gigantic centralized power plants may be a thing of the past... wouldn't that be nice?

There's more, but I'm not fixated on one or the other, with regards to centralism/federalism.

[Aggie]

National police would be really bad as well:  the police *need* to live in the community they are watching over.  This way, they have a vested interest in their jobs: it is literally protecting their own families as well as the families of others.

National police don't need to be centrally based (actually, this seems near-impossible); most of Canada (geographically*) is nationally policed, by locally based RCMP detachments.  Not that I'm very impressed with the RCMP lately...


*based on population I suspect it's less than half, as Ontario has the OPP and most major cities maintain a municipal police force.  Not sure about Quebec.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Same for monetary standards, engineering standards, communication protocols, and anything that needs to be consistent across the spectrum.

You see, that's the 'beauty' of the subject, lets take monetary standards, it is good to have one currency in a country, right? But what happens if we talk about the Euro zone, (ask beagle, no don't, we don't want to raise his blood pressure anymore ), what's the point of confederation if there is no single currency? Or would it be OK if Canada and the US shared the same currency? I would hear the cry of bloody murder just by raising the issue.

Or engineering standards, like say, the metric system?

I heard arguments while the gas prices were on the roof about how each state has a different formulation for it's gas/petrol, is that logical?

[Griffin NoName]

Lawmaking has different categories: zustimmungspflichtige (consent requiring) and nicht zustimmungspflichtige (not consent requiring) Gesetzesvorlagen (bills). The representation of the Länder, the Bundesrat (~senate*), has a say in the former but not the latter. The federal parliament, the Bundestag (~house) can under certain circumstances override a no by the Bundesrat.
There are no competing versions of a bill but the Bundestag votes on a bill and then, if it has a majority, sends it to the Bundesrat for their vote. If they agree too, then it is sent to the Bundespräsident for signing. He can only procrastinate signing but not refuse it (no veto power). But he is one who has the right to call the Bundesverfassungsgericht (~Supreme Court but different in some important details), if he thinks that the law violates the Constitution.

I misread this as Lawnmaking and have been very confused by this thread.

[Aggie]

Or would it be OK if Canada and the US shared the same currency? I would hear the cry of bloody murder just by raising the issue.

*cries bloody murder*

Or engineering standards, like say, the metric system?

Not using the metric system?  There's only a few backwards countries that refuse to use it, like Myanmar, Liberia and....   um, never mind.   

[Griffin NoName]

I never use the metric system for measuring my lawns.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There's only a few backwards countries that refuse to use it

If God had wanted us to use the metric system, Jesus would have had 10 apostles.

US Senator Jesse Helms

(I'm sure he has six fingers in each hand...  ).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Same for monetary standards, engineering standards, communication protocols, and anything that needs to be consistent across the spectrum.

You see, that's the 'beauty' of the subject, lets take monetary standards, it is good to have one currency in a country, right? But what happens if we talk about the Euro zone, (ask beagle, no don't, we don't want to raise his blood pressure anymore ), what's the point of confederation if there is no single currency? Or would it be OK if Canada and the US shared the same currency? I would hear the cry of bloody murder just by raising the issue.

Or engineering standards, like say, the metric system?

I heard arguments while the gas prices were on the roof about how each state has a different formulation for it's gas/petrol, is that logical?

See? You make my case for me.... 

Personally?  I think money ought to be international-- an international currency, the same around the world.  That way, you would sack those parasites who's only function is creating phony profit from moving bits of cash from A to B.....