Federalism vs Centralism and Small vs big government - Political Forum

Slartibartfas · 06-19-2007, 05:51 PM

I had a discussion with emptipepsi about the question of federalism vs centralism and also about small vs big government.

I think its worth a thread on its own.

What do you think about advantages and disadvantages? And whats the better form for whom?

emptypepsi · 06-19-2007, 06:03 PM

Well, first, we must identify a better form for WHAT? For the lives of the citizens and the retention of liberty, or the better form for economic gain/standing? They are two different areas of American life that could be affected. (I only bring this up because I believe we were both making arguments for opposite topics, so I think it's important to clarify what aspect of the country we are arguing for).

Slartibartfas · 06-19-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptipepsi

Well, I have two problems with the bolded text. One, I'm not making that argument, so the quote of absolute power corrupting doesn't really move against what I am speaking about. Two, I didn't propose that we have no government, or total abolition of the Federal government, so I fail to see how the analogy fits here WRT a total power to the President system versus what I have spoken about.

You dont make that argument that absolute power corrupts absolute? I thought I remembered you using that quote... well maybe I err.

Regarding the second part of your paragraph, my concern is not about extremes. I am talking of course about developements in one or the other direction. Of course the extreme will be not happening. But that does not mean that it will take the way in the same direction, just not as far.

Quote:

Also, perhaps in a system where there was no Federal Government, I could see states running into problems like this much more easily. However, I've not moved to obliterate the Federal Government in places of regulating commerce between the states, for instance. That would be asking for trouble, and economic warfare would surely ensue in such a case. Again, I'm not asking for a state-only government system, but rather the reverse position of government power ratio WRT the citizens -- a greater percentage of state-local involvement, though not necessarily to the point of swallowing the system whole, making Federal govt. insignificant.

There is no clear cut category "commerce between states". If for example the EU would exclusively have powers on questions concerning inter states commerce, we would not have a single market until this very day.

The single market only works because of the far reaching competences of the EU to take care that it really works. Also when it comes to clearly domestic economic issues, this does not have to mean that it doesn't undermine the single market. If it does, it will attract the attention of the EU and will have a hard stay.

I just show this as example for you, not to set you a same with Europe, but because these basic principles of economic policies are as true in the US.

But apart from that, the principle weakness of the system is often inefficient and unneeded redundancy. I am not necessarily talking about the important things here, its lots of unimportant stuff that sums up in all the states. Federalism costs much money, without necessarily giving you better results.

Slartibartfas · 06-19-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

Well, first, we must identify a better form for WHAT? For the lives of the citizens and the retention of liberty, or the better form for economic gain/standing? They are two different areas of American life that could be affected. (I only bring this up because I believe we were both making arguments for opposite topics, so I think it's important to clarify what aspect of the country we are arguing for).

I would say, I am talking about the benefit for the people as a whole.

I just picked out economy because it illustrates my point so powerfull. But there are lots of other fields where similar arguments of size matters apply. Environmental policies for example but by far not only.

emptypepsi · 06-19-2007, 06:42 PM

In my view, though a central government is a necessary component of a Democratic Republic, the allocation of rights and liberties for States and even local areas of the a Nation serve a very important function - in my eyes, the proverbial "laboratory of democracy". Let us take a simple example, to illustrate how allowing States to make decisions in areas such as fiscal policy can benefit the country as a whole WRT keeping choice and power closer to citizens.

The Federal Minimum Wage. As it stands, our central government dictates the minimum wage. That means it has an across the board effect on the nation - every state must abide. At the least, all fifty states must pay $5.15 an hour to workers.

However, this makes as much sense as mandating that each and every person wear the same shoe size. Not everyone's feet are the same size, and just the same, expenses/costs of living will differ from state to state. Why not let voters of that state petition, vote, and decide what will work for them as taxpayers and residents of the state? To bring in the shoe analogy, wouldn't that make more sense, in a way, than me telling you that you WILL wear a size 13, even though you fit a size 10?

And let us say, for the sake of argument, that it failed miserably. This is where the concept of a laboratory of democracy commences. States should be free to implement new ideas, and in doing so, could gain or lose from them without having involved the rest of the country. In a sense, it would allow other states to give them a basis for testing the waters on certain legislation. it would give them a compass, rather than holding their finger to the wind, so to speak.

What if upping the Minimum Wage federally is going to hurt taxpayers and employers in Vermont, though it may help Texans? Is it really worth it, then? Why not allow citizens their chance to move it via a state legislation, rather than having the Federal Government dictate the ruling for them? How would this be condusive to keeping liberty closer to the people?

The fact that mistakes will be made is a constant, as we are all human beings. But, we can not legislate based on what we are afraid may or may not happen, but what is more beneficial to humans in the end of keeping liberty closest to the people.

emptypepsi · 06-19-2007, 06:52 PM

Whoops, sorry Slarti. I did not see your other post. I will reply to it as well.

emptypepsi · 06-19-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

But apart from that, the principle weakness of the system is often inefficient and unneeded redundancy. I am not necessarily talking about the important things here, its lots of unimportant stuff that sums up in all the states. Federalism costs much money, without necessarily giving you better results.

I think I've uncovered a key disconnect in the discussion, here. It seems that I am looking for a system that promotes liberty closer to people, without much forethought to whether it keeps us #1, or even #2 in a global economy. That is, I believe a strong state of liberty is condusive to keeping the market free and healthy. You seem to be making an argument here that while State-closer measures can be beneficial, they will offer mediocre results in the regard.

In summary, it appears you are arguing for the Economic beneficial end of maintaining a somewhat strong central end, and I am arguing a strong State-end for the benefit of keeping individual liberty intact. We're fighting two opposite poles of the same beast, here.

Let me restate, I am not denying nor belittling the benefits of a Central involvement in economic matters. However, in a micro sense, there are cases in which I feel a stronger state prescence would be better in keeping decisions closer to the citizens.

Slartibartfas · 06-19-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

In my view, though a central government is a necessary component of a Democratic Republic, the allocation of rights and liberties for States and even local areas of the a Nation serve a very important function - in my eyes, the proverbial "laboratory of democracy". Let us take a simple example, to illustrate how allowing States to make decisions in areas such as fiscal policy can benefit the country as a whole WRT keeping choice and power closer to citizens.

The Federal Minimum Wage. As it stands, our central government dictates the minimum wage. That means it has an across the board effect on the nation - every state must abide. At the least, all fifty states must pay $5.15 an hour to workers.

However, this makes as much sense as mandating that each and every person wear the same shoe size. Not everyone's feet are the same size, and just the same, expenses/costs of living will differ from state to state. Why not let voters of that state petition, vote, and decide what will work for them as taxpayers and residents of the state? To bring in the shoe analogy, wouldn't that make more sense, in a way, than me telling you that you WILL wear a size 13, even though you fit a size 10?

Regarding this example you lack to see the key problem. The different levels will not be placed then according to the needs of the people, but according to the need to handle the competition that will arise about jobs. No matter if you choose to handle it direct democratically or not, competition between the states will dictate the development. Which means by pointing out at the risk of relocation of jobs to the neighbor state with a slightly worse protection the protection will be downgraded. That process is called "social dumping" and is a circle in which the states try to dump each other until not much is left of any social security anymore. It takes place especially in places where high mobility is given between the legal entities that decide on those social issues. Nowhere is more mobility than within the US.

Quote:

And let us say, for the sake of argument, that it failed miserably. This is where the concept of a laboratory of democracy commences. States should be free to implement new ideas, and in doing so, could gain or lose from them without having involved the rest of the country. In a sense, it would allow other states to give them a basis for testing the waters on certain legislation. it would give them a compass, rather than holding their finger to the wind, so to speak.

How should those powers be retransferred again? By leaving that power exclusively in the hands of the federal government? Because if the states should have a mandatory say, you will be able to wait for long until they will give up the power again. Thats called egoism, it also exists in politics, even if direct democratic one.

Dont get me wrong, I am not against states having a certain frame within they can try around. But the federal state should have the power to get the things on track again, if a nasty social dumping or other destructive inter states mechanism should take place on something specific.

emptypepsi · 06-19-2007, 07:09 PM

Slarti, I appreciate your having opened the thread, but I will have to continue with rebuttles and discussion at a later time. I have an exam to prep for tommorow. Danke. ;-)

PS - Before leaving, I will be conceding your point WRT the dumping between states. That is to say, I will concede that it is imporant to have a federal government to step in to settle such quarrels, so long as there exists the oppurtunity and freedom to allow citizens to attempt such things and develop such ideas (whether they fail or not) unfettered, as I don't see the scenario being out of the question, though neither is it a universal benchmark.

PPS - I hope others will join in as well, as this is not solely a Me/Slarti discussion, nor a particular formal debate. Feel free to add input.

perdidochas · 06-19-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I had a discussion with emptipepsi about the question of federalism vs centralism and also about small vs big government.

I think its worth a thread on its own.

What do you think about advantages and disadvantages? And whats the better form for whom?

Federalism is better for the purposes of efficiency and liberty. The more that government can make decisions at a lower level, the better off we are.