|
Title: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on February 11, 2017, 08:01:18 PM If the United States of America had to change from having a federal government into either a
*Unitary government Similar but not identical to the UK/Poland/Israel/France/Japan/Norway/Sweden/Finland/NewZealand/Chile/Spain/Portugal/Italy and the 150+ other unitary governments in the world The national/unitary/central government can grant autonomy to subdivisions, but also can take them away and take direct control, change internal boundaries and subdivisions however they want, and can also define and change their relationship to those subdivisions/states however it wants States only have the authority and power that the national/unitary government gives them, national law supersedes all state/local laws, no more states' rights Wikipedia: Quote A unitary state is a state governed as a single power in which the central government is ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions (sub-national units) exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. The majority of states in the world have a unitary system of government. Of the 193 UN member states, 165 of them are governed as unitary states. Unitary states are contrasted with federal states (federations). In a unitary state, sub-national units are created and abolished (an example being the 22 mainland regions of France being merged into 13), and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power, but such power is delegated by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which may enact laws unilaterally altering or abolishing devolution (England does not have any devolved power). Many unitary states have no areas possessing a degree of autonomy. In such countries, sub-national regions cannot decide their own laws. Examples are the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway. In federal states, the sub-national governments share powers with the central government as equal actors through a written constitution, to which the consent of both is required to make amendments. This means that the sub-national units have a right of existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. *also, the Senate is probably eliminated in this scenario or *Confederate government Similar but not identical to the pre-Constitution Confederation, or the Confederate States of America, or the European Union, or the United Nations. The national/confederal government can be responsible for some national defense, a common currency, freedom of movement and trade within, maintain borders with non-members, conduct diplomacy... and not much more [no strong chief executive, very little taxing power, no national court system since the Congress/Senate would be the ultimate decider in the little legal area they have, and only allowed to go into debt in times of war] Much more consensus-driven or possibly even unanimity needed, or no decisions and the possibility of a member to peacefully leave At the national/confederal level: no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, Food Stamps, economic stimulus, mandatory desegregation or religious disestablishment or even the bill of rights, neither pro-life/pro-choice or pro/anti-SSM at this level... etcetera. But states are free to choose however they wish, with each state more like its own country. States can certainly try those things and even more "progressive" projects (but it might be hard for the smaller states who want grand social projects, like single-payer healthcare, to actually afford it) Wikipedia: Quote A confederation (also known as a confederacy or league) is a union of sovereign states, united for purposes of common action often in relation to other states. Usually created by a treaty, confederations of states tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defence, foreign relations, internal trade or currency, with the general government being required to provide support for all its members. Confederalism represents a main form of inter-governmentalism, this being defined as ‘any form of interaction between states which takes place on the basis of sovereign independence. The nature of the relationship among the member states constituting a confederation varies considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states and the general government, and the distribution of powers among them is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to international organisations. Other confederations with stricter rules may resemble federal systems. Since the member states of a confederation retain their sovereignty, they have an implicit right of secession. Political philosopher Emmerich Vattel observed: ‘Several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. … The deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member’. Under a confederal arrangement, in contrast with a federal one, the central authority is relatively weak. Decisions made by the general government in an unicameral legislature, a council of the member states, require subsequent implementation by the member states to take effect. They are therefore not laws acting directly upon the individual, but instead have more the character of inter-state agreements. Also, decision-making in the general government usually proceeds by consensus (unanimity) and not by majority, which makes for a slow and inefficient government. *also, the House of Representatives is probably eliminated in this scenario (and it's probably up to each state in how its Senator is chosen, whether elected or chosen by state legislature or appointed by governor) ...which would you prefer for the United States in the very-near-future, if these two are the only choices? Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2017, 08:02:31 PM Unitary when Democrats are in power, Confederate when Republicans are in power (sane). :P
Seriously though, the principle of federalism is good for a country like the US. It's the way it's put into practice that poses problem. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on February 11, 2017, 08:07:44 PM Unitary when Democrats are in power, Confederate when Republicans are in power (sane). :P (and Republicans probably feel similar too, but I would guess lean confederate... not sure what the proportion will be for them, though) Quote Seriously though, the principle of federalism is good for a country like the US. It's the way it's put into practice that poses problem. What do you suggest?Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2017, 09:10:16 PM Quote Seriously though, the principle of federalism is good for a country like the US. It's the way it's put into practice that poses problem. What do you suggest?I think the division of power between States and the Federal Government needs a complete overhaul. It was written for a time when governments in general took up very different tasks than those they have today. The constitution's enumeration of federal powers says essentially nothing about these new competencies, and this results in continuous legal battles to understand what Congress can and can't do (and artifices like NFIB vs Sebelius to justify Congress taking up powers that it doesn't really have). We need a much more comprehensive division of powers that addresses these various issues. I think a good idea could be to look into more modern federal States, like Germany. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: (Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31 on February 11, 2017, 09:59:13 PM Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on February 11, 2017, 10:12:32 PM Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government. Not much different from a state government, or all those unitary governments I listed. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 11, 2017, 10:53:55 PM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2017, 10:55:51 PM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system. This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 11, 2017, 11:11:48 PM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system. This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination. How so? It would come down to how regional boundaries are drawn, or even the states themselves could be redrawn so that the reliably liberal and conservative-voting constituencies don't have to clash with each other. Or the municipalities could have more power. That would mean no more overreaching state laws repealing minimum wage increases and civil rights ordinances. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2017, 11:28:14 PM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system. This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination. How so? It would come down to how regional boundaries are drawn, or even the states themselves could be redrawn so that the reliably liberal and conservative-voting constituencies don't have to clash with each other. Or the municipalities could have more power. That would mean no more overreaching state laws repealing minimum wage increases and civil rights ordinances. Very often "conservative-voting" constituencies are the first victims of conservative policies. I don't think the moral solution for the left is to abandon those voters to their conmen. Packing Democrats and Republicans together is the best way to accentuate the trends that have made US politics so dysfunctional. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: RFayette on February 11, 2017, 11:48:39 PM I'm a good ol rebel. This. I would be absolutely elated if we could finally outlaw abortion in conservative states, which would be possible with a more decentralized federal government. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: (Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31 on February 12, 2017, 12:01:15 AM Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government. Not much different from a state government, or all those unitary governments I listed. -Meaningless under unified progressive party control. At least there's some room for experimentation with the states. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 12, 2017, 12:05:12 AM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system. This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination. How so? It would come down to how regional boundaries are drawn, or even the states themselves could be redrawn so that the reliably liberal and conservative-voting constituencies don't have to clash with each other. Or the municipalities could have more power. That would mean no more overreaching state laws repealing minimum wage increases and civil rights ordinances. Very often "conservative-voting" constituencies are the first victims of conservative policies. I don't think the moral solution for the left is to abandon those voters to their conmen. Packing Democrats and Republicans together is the best way to accentuate the trends that have made US politics so dysfunctional. How is it abandonment if the people consented to those policies through their votes? That way it's easier to give credit or blame to specific politicians or laws if those policies only affect the specific area. If people are unhappy with the outcomes, they can either vote out their counsel members and mayors or move to the next town or city over which does things differently. I think there's a good progressive case to be made for municipal rights over, say, states' rights. It's much easier to move to another town or city than it is to move to a different state. Obviously some laws would need to be universal so that they can be applied practically and protect individual rights, but it's likely the best possible way to address polarization as it exists now. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on February 12, 2017, 12:21:41 AM Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government. Not much different from a state government, or all those unitary governments I listed. -Meaningless under unified progressive party control. At least there's some room for experimentation with the states. edit: Could this at least be moved to Individual Politics? This subforum is quite inactive. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 13, 2017, 06:40:35 PM I am of the opinion that the distribution of power in government should be localized, so that it can be more responsive to the interests and needs of the people who live under that government. As such, I choose Confederate (R).
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: angus on February 13, 2017, 08:03:56 PM confederacy* (I/O)
*local option regarding local tax and zoning laws, but with open borders and a common currency. Something like the Rheinbund, but without aristocracy, kings, dukes, or Napoleon. That confederation was above all a military alliance, which I think is the important part: common defense. Let each decide how good its schools and hospitals ought to be, but there should be free trade among them and a common army and navy for the protection of all. Also, there should be something in the original contract about not allowing extermination of all aliens, as in the current episode of Supergirl, and in the current presidential administration of the United States. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: js4482 on February 18, 2017, 11:37:01 AM I would find it difficult to familarise myself with 50 different sets of laws. In my opinion, it's better to have one central government that make laws throughout the entire nation so everyone in the country lives under equal regulations.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on February 19, 2017, 10:15:05 AM I am of the opinion that the distribution of power in government should be localized, so that it can be more responsive to the interests and needs of the people who live under that government. As such, I choose Confederate (R). I have this logic, but conclude unitary. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on March 16, 2017, 11:20:04 PM It looks like Unitary is slightly winning.
Unitary is by far the favorite for Democrats. Confederacy is favored by Republicans. Independents are split, slightly favoring Confederacy more. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Middle-aged Europe on March 18, 2017, 07:23:50 AM Considering that there probably wouldn't be an Electoral College in a unitary state (since there are no states anymore) and considering that the Republicans won the popular vote only once in the the last seven presidential elections, I'd say unitary.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: White Trash on March 18, 2017, 02:56:25 PM The United States is too culturally, demographically, and politically diverse to operate a unitary state. Just because certain laws work in Connecticut, that doesn't mean that they would work in Wyoming necessarily.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: RFayette on March 18, 2017, 04:57:20 PM The United States is too culturally, demographically, and politically diverse to operate a unitary state. Just because certain laws work in Connecticut, that doesn't mean that they would work in Wyoming necessarily. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: DC Al Fine on March 18, 2017, 05:20:29 PM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system. This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination. How so? It would come down to how regional boundaries are drawn, or even the states themselves could be redrawn so that the reliably liberal and conservative-voting constituencies don't have to clash with each other. Or the municipalities could have more power. That would mean no more overreaching state laws repealing minimum wage increases and civil rights ordinances. Very often "conservative-voting" constituencies are the first victims of conservative policies. I don't think the moral solution for the left is to abandon those voters to their conmen. Packing Democrats and Republicans together is the best way to accentuate the trends that have made US politics so dysfunctional. How is it abandonment if the people consented to those policies through their votes? That way it's easier to give credit or blame to specific politicians or laws if those policies only affect the specific area. If people are unhappy with the outcomes, they can either vote out their counsel members and mayors or move to the next town or city over which does things differently. I think there's a good progressive case to be made for municipal rights over, say, states' rights. It's much easier to move to another town or city than it is to move to a different state. Obviously some laws would need to be universal so that they can be applied practically and protect individual rights, but it's likely the best possible way to address polarization as it exists now. I disagree with Tony's 'conmen' analogy but his logic is sound otherwise. Take Texas for example. The Democrats can't win on the statewide level, but it's not Washington D.C. Abandonment would entail leaving ~40% of voters to the 'other side', to say nothing of all the children, recent immigrants etc. Is really moral to leave all those people to no labour protections or environmental regulations? Or take the conservative side. Is it right to abandon Illinois' babies to abortion, her churches to anti-clerical bureaucrats, and her businesses to rapacious tax collectors? If you really believe the other party's ideology is that wrong, that wicked, and that harmful, it's blatantly immoral to abandon people to it. Besides, the whole 'abandon them' notion has this weird judgmental God vibe, which is really unseemly coming from Atlas posters. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on March 18, 2017, 05:30:36 PM The United States is too culturally, demographically, and politically diverse to operate a unitary state. Just because certain laws work in Connecticut, that doesn't mean that they would work in Wyoming necessarily. But I'm struggling to think of a good example of what you could mean? Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on March 19, 2017, 09:18:31 AM The United States is too culturally, demographically, and politically diverse to operate a unitary state. Just because certain laws work in Connecticut, that doesn't mean that they would work in Wyoming necessarily. Fascist. *Pluriculturaidt. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Green Line on March 19, 2017, 12:41:45 PM There are already way too many states rights.. I'd get rid of it.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on March 19, 2017, 05:21:08 PM Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions. Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system. This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination. How so? It would come down to how regional boundaries are drawn, or even the states themselves could be redrawn so that the reliably liberal and conservative-voting constituencies don't have to clash with each other. Or the municipalities could have more power. That would mean no more overreaching state laws repealing minimum wage increases and civil rights ordinances. Very often "conservative-voting" constituencies are the first victims of conservative policies. I don't think the moral solution for the left is to abandon those voters to their conmen. Packing Democrats and Republicans together is the best way to accentuate the trends that have made US politics so dysfunctional. How is it abandonment if the people consented to those policies through their votes? That way it's easier to give credit or blame to specific politicians or laws if those policies only affect the specific area. If people are unhappy with the outcomes, they can either vote out their counsel members and mayors or move to the next town or city over which does things differently. I think there's a good progressive case to be made for municipal rights over, say, states' rights. It's much easier to move to another town or city than it is to move to a different state. Obviously some laws would need to be universal so that they can be applied practically and protect individual rights, but it's likely the best possible way to address polarization as it exists now. I disagree with Tony's 'conmen' analogy but his logic is sound otherwise. Take Texas for example. The Democrats can't win on the statewide level, but it's not Washington D.C. Abandonment would entail leaving ~40% of voters to the 'other side', to say nothing of all the children, recent immigrants etc. Is really moral to leave all those people to no labour protections or environmental regulations? Or take the conservative side. Is it right to abandon Illinois' babies to abortion, her churches to anti-clerical bureaucrats, and her businesses to rapacious tax collectors? If you really believe the other party's ideology is that wrong, that wicked, and that harmful, it's blatantly immoral to abandon people to it. Besides, the whole 'abandon them' notion has this weird judgmental God vibe, which is really unseemly coming from Atlas posters. Under the status quo, a majority of Americans are living under a president that they did not vote for who's governing more and more like a dictator. How is that any better than giving states and localities more flexibility so that they can do things their own way, whether it's for environmental regulations or labor protections or protecting peaceful immigrants from ICE thugs or legalizing dope? You can make a case for or against those things, but giving people choice and more direct say in local politics is not "abandoning" them. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on March 21, 2017, 02:44:43 PM A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...)
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on June 05, 2017, 12:08:22 AM A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...) Yes, unitary just means the national government has the last word... but like the UK, you can have highly-decentralized regions like Scotland with its own Parliament. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Kingpoleon on June 05, 2017, 08:31:47 PM I am of the opinion that the distribution of power in government should be localized, so that it can be more responsive to the interests and needs of the people who live under that government. As such, I choose Confederate (R). I vote Confederate. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 06, 2017, 05:40:08 AM U.S. it too large for a classical unitary country. Unitary country with some devolution would be better.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: White Trash on June 06, 2017, 05:57:51 PM The United States is too culturally, demographically, and politically diverse to operate a unitary state. Just because certain laws work in Connecticut, that doesn't mean that they would work in Wyoming necessarily. But I'm struggling to think of a good example of what you could mean? Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on June 10, 2017, 11:57:43 PM A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...) Yes, unitary just means the national government has the last word... but like the UK, you can have highly-decentralized regions like Scotland with its own Parliament. The difference between a federation and unitary as no constitutional limits to the unitary government vis a vis the subnational units, is that what you mean? Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on June 11, 2017, 12:02:23 PM A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...) Yes, unitary just means the national government has the last word... but like the UK, you can have highly-decentralized regions like Scotland with its own Parliament. The difference between a federation and unitary as no constitutional limits to the unitary government vis a vis the subnational units, is that what you mean? Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: vanguard96 on June 27, 2017, 03:02:40 PM I picked confederacy because it would be decentralized and reduce the imperialist tendencies of the US overseas.
Generally speaking I'd rather have secession than a civil war. I'd rather have a smaller government than a larger one. Given scarce resources I think it would quicken the move toward private solutions less reliant on government funding, subsidies or partnerships. Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Senator-elect Spark on August 01, 2017, 11:39:07 PM Confederacy
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on August 02, 2017, 03:21:37 AM I love how people are ignoring reality in this thread by pretending that a "confederacy" would be interested in localism (as opposed to a Unitary system, which would presumably be far more localist)
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Blue3 on September 12, 2017, 10:25:51 PM Relevant bump
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Wakie77 on September 13, 2017, 09:07:12 AM The problem with a Confederate form of government is that very little actually gets done. One of the main complaints of Jefferson Davis was that he was unable to accomplish anything even amidst a war because the Confederate states refused to take even the smallest action unless it was overwhelmingly to their personal benefit.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Vosem on September 13, 2017, 12:23:52 PM Confederate, but at a level above the state level. Unify states so there's 8-12 total, and then have a confederation of that. No reason to keep the Dakotas separate.
Title: Re: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one? Post by: Gary J on September 16, 2017, 10:26:57 AM Neither option seems sensible.
The United States is too large and diverse for a unitary government. The sort of weak conferderation suggested proved inadequate to the needs of a rural backwater polity in the 18th century, so how it could function effectively as the government of a 21st century super power is not obvious. |