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..... 

[pieces o nine]

Bob!  Why do you hate the Murrican Dollar!   



...oh yeah, I forgot for a momennt: all them other countries would adopt it --  *gratefully*  ...   

[Swatopluk]

I think the standard is that there is both a federal and a local police with different responsibilities.
A world currency would remove the buffer capability of a system of different only partially interdependent currencies.
What if some idiots managed to for example crash the US dollar (not that anything could ever touch the almighty greenback) and there would be no other currency around?
So, I think, no matter how centralistic one is one should keep the local systems strong enough to be able to work as the second line of defence in case of the national (or international) system losing that capability for whatever reason.

A decentralised system has the advantage that a failure can be kept local, while a fully centralised system would immediately affect everything. The other side of the coin is of course that ina decentralised system local rot can fester for a long time because it does not affect the system as a whole.
In the US, the party that has lost the presidency and/or Congress is typically all for states rights while the ruling party in Washington likes to expand the power of the central government. Or historically, China botched its chance of becoming a worldwide empire because a temporary power change in the capital led to the scrapping of all ocean-going capabilities (and the systematic destruction of the know-how iirc). In a decentralised system those capabilities would probaly have been kept somewhere, ready to be re-awakened once the power relations in the capital changed back to normal.
The balance is always delicate. Personally I am for keeping the responsibilities mainly on the level of primary importance (i.e. the level where most of the effects apply) but always keeping the possibility of an emergency override on the higher level (what they call Bundeszwang* over here).

*which is zustimmungspflichtig (cf. earlier post)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've seen the failure of both on the same issue back home: for more than a century Colombia had a central bureaucracy that sometimes reached insane proportions (like a central power dictating mayors in cities pretty much as the Spaniards did before them). That changed in '91 when a new constitution mandated de-centralization, allowing public elections of governors and mayors, etc.

With the old constitution the farther you went from the center the worse the conditions were, so while Bogota was a beacon of culture the towns retired from big cities were the stage of complete abandon and subsequent anarchy. With the new constitution you would think things would improve, and perhaps it has improved for some, specially the middle size cities that had enough resources+common sense, but in many cases a central corruption was replaced by a local one; I recall in particular a city that benefits from millions on royalties from oil exploitation which frankly is the same hellhole as it was when there wasn't such source of money, despite locally elected mayor, council, governor, etc.
---
Personally I find my self in conflict over both concepts all the time, if the nutz that want to buy guns and ammo like popcorn, shouldn't they define among themselves if that's what they want and live on a free bullet society? But when those bullets can reach me and those around me that don't want them because the borders are permeable their so called 'freedom' isn't free anymore.

Wasn't the case of federal laws in the US what allowed slavery in certain states while others balked at the idea? Wasn't that permeability what brought up the civil war (more than human decency)?

Wouldn't we prevent most political abuses if there were a central power willing and capable to prevent it (Darfur being the last example)? How would we know that that power wouldn't become a tyranny of the center?

If we then talk about the 'separate but equal' concept of nations, is it OK for Iran or China to target their dissidents or for the US & friends to lock up suspects in a torture hole outside laws?

In essence, with which evil are we prepared to live?

[Swatopluk]

The Chinese (in the distant past) fared well with the principle that no high official was allowed to serve in his home province. There were also term limits, i.e. an offcial would transfer from from one district to another every few years. That seems to have worked quite well as an anti-corruption policy. And then there was that judicial malpractice prevention system: A judge (and his staff) would suffer the same punishment in case of false conviction. Texas offcials would tremble in fear, if something similar was introduced there  .

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

Bob!  Why do you hate the Murrican Dollar!   



...oh yeah, I forgot for a momennt: all them other countries would adopt it --  *gratefully*  ...   

Erm....because of corruption at the National level? 

+++++++++++++

... And then there was that judicial malpractice prevention system: A judge (and his staff) would suffer the same punishment in case of false conviction. Texas offcials would tremble in fear, if something similar was introduced there  .

Well, it *would* be one way to achieve Justice over Bushya.... wouldn't it...!

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Hmmm, mixed feelings here.

Federalism can be a pain in the butt when laws criss-cross each other, like dry counties, states with legalized medical marijuana, and then the over-arching federal laws that get in the way. There's more to the problem than laws being an issue but I have to go dig up my notes unless I want to base this argument off vague memories from high school. As I recall though, the federalist system leads to a lot of competition for money between state and federal entities and both ends of the equation do a lot of things that counteract what the other end is doing.

Centrism has other issues that haven't been mentioned yet. In addition to being rather far from local concerns, when such concerns enter federal awareness they tie up other things. DC shouldn't be worrying about whether my college district will get enough funding. We're huge here in the county (my specific school alone is serving 25,000 students) but we're itsy bitsy in the grand scope of things. Also, they have a limited ability to judge what we need and their guessing is haphazard at best. My elected rep in Washington should be focusing on bigger issues like health care (though I doubt mine is doing so in a positive manner as he's a republican).
Also, I have concerns as to what would happen if the REALLY wrong guy ended up in power in DC. State governments can act independently enough to succeed if some horrible thing happened and we got a psycho for President/other position of power.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The higher you go the worst you can screw things up (did you forgot dubya already?). Although in theory that's why we have 'checks & balances', but the reality of power is that it's a screwy business regardless of how central or distributed it is.

[Aggie]

As I recall though, the federalist system leads to a lot of competition for money between state and federal entities and both ends of the equation do a lot of things that counteract what the other end is doing.

We have provincial competition to some degree (between provinces), but the federal/provincial jurisdictions are generally fairly clear-cut in Canada.  The provinces squabble for funding with each other, but the system is set up such that the better-to-do provinces actually subsidize the poorer ones in part (regional economics dictate that nobody stays on top all the time, so there's a lot of give and take).