NationStates Jolt Archive

Which is better and why? Assuming that both run on democratic principles.

Why does the term "Central" anything give me such a feeling of revulsion?

We want a poll!

We want a poll!
Done and done. It's worth reviewing!
In fact, it should be closed!

Central government all the way!

Chocolate tentacles are clearly the best form of government.

Chocolate tentacles are clearly the best form of government.

Sounds like you wish to be probed. I will be gentle. :D

Which is better and why? Assuming that both run on democratic principles.

Why does the term "Central" anything give me such a feeling of revulsion?
Central Powers
Central Station
Central Park
Have i hit a nerve yet?

I wonder if Australia should have skipped Federalism. Before modern communication Federalism made sense over a large landmass, but we had telephone and telegraph in 1901 when Australia the state was created. Of course, I can't really say that the UK system is better than what we have. (
Actually I think what we have is better, but for reasons other than federalism/centeral government.)

Central Powers
Central Station
Central Park
Have i hit a nerve yet?

You hit me funny bone. :eek:

What a twangy feeling.

I dunno, they all have they pros and cons. Actually I can't really say that as I'm not too sure how a federal government would work, and by confederation do you mean something like the EU?

I dunno, they all have they pros and cons. Actually I can't really say that as I'm not too sure how a federal government would work, and by confederation do you mean something like the EU?

Yeah.

Yeah.You mean confederation as in intergovernmental co-operation? Only the EU isn't only intergovernmental, it has supranational aspects as well. It's kinda like a new form or power organisation.

You hit me funny bone. :eek:

What a twangy feeling.
*Rubs it better*

Originally posted by The Infinite Dunes
You mean confederation as in intergovernmental co-operation? Only the EU isn't only intergovernmental, it has supranational aspects as well. It's kinda like a new form or power organisation.
All Federations and Confederations have a Central element to them. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Fed/Confederations but fully independent countries.

I prefer Confederation as a model as it gives the constituent states at least as much power as the centre if not more (in theory).

The Confederate States?

If you mean (first 2 options) a federal vs. unitary state, then it really depends on the state. Canada and the US would fall apart if the central government took too much power (and couldn't have been formed in the first place). A lot of the European states seem to function quite well with a unitary government.

originally posted by Harlesburg
The Confederate States?
I'm led to believe the individual states within the CSA during it's brief existence did theoretically have a lot of autonomy. As they only existed in a time of war it's unlikely they had the opportunity to exercise much of that autonomy.

I'm led to believe the individual states within the CSA during it's brief existence did theoretically have a lot of autonomy. As they only existed in a time of war it's unlikely they had the opportunity to exercise much of that autonomy.
Ah it makes sense now, i am not really sure but that is the republicans ideals, for more state control opposed to Washington.

Originaly posted by Harlesburg
Ah it makes sense now, i am not really sure but that is the republicans ideals, for more state control opposed to Washington.
Which is ironic given that the Republicans were more for Central govt back then while the Democrats were based largely in the South. The evolution of political parties can be fascinating in a dull kind of way :) .

The current Republican view is probably more to do with the abilty to cut federal taxes, primarily for big business. I doubt it has much to do with political, social or constitutional reasons, except where they can effect those to the advantage of big business.

Which is ironic given that the Republicans were more for Central govt back then while the Democrats were based largely in the South. The evolution of political parties can be fascinating in a dull kind of way :) .

The current Republican view is probably more to do with the abilty to cut federal taxes, primarily for big business. I doubt it has much to do with political, social or constitutional reasons, except where they can effect those to the advantage of big business.
The Confederates would have been wooped if Buchanen ghadn't have casually sent cannon down to the Southern states prior to the revolt.

Originally posted by Harlesburg
The Confederates would have been wooped if Buchanen ghadn't have casually sent cannon down to the Southern states prior to the revolt.
Who is Buchanen? My knowledge of the American Civil War doesn't go that deep :( .

Who is Buchanen? My knowledge of the American Civil War doesn't go that deep :( .
The President before Lincoln.
I read he bulked up the southern forts just in case things went sour,
He prefered to keep the norm.

my ideal would be to have the base unit as about one million (a bit like a city state) who would elect people to run the locality then have a higher body for something about the size of Britain, then a europe sized group then a world.

so step wise methods of government, so the local one is there to repair roads and build houses and have schools, the one up from that is for most laws and things like that, the europe sized one for everything not covered at lower levels (so this would be the state in this system), Then the world one is to coordinate the actions of the regions of the world (so that we arent working at cross purposes)

Originally posted by Harlesburg
He prefered to keep the norm.
What do you mean by "the norm"? Would that not mean he favoured the Union? Was he a Southerner? A Democrat?

As for Bronidium's idea, it's all very neat and tidy but completely unworkable in the real world. You're not an Illuminatus are you :) . NWO and all that.

The President before Lincoln.
I read he bulked up the southern forts just in case things went sour,
He prefered to keep the norm.

Actually, that was John Buchanan Floyd, the Secretary of War. James Buchanan (the President when South Carolina declared itself independent) Buchanan himself disagreed with secession, but didn't believe the US government had any authority to stop the southern states from leaving.

As for myself, I would prefer at most a confederation. However, I would much prefer a loose economic and military association made up of small republics. I'm beginning to question whether or not we should even have a Federal government. It seems that one man or group of men having control over something as large and powerful as these 50 states is just too much for them to handle without abusing their positions.

If it's a very a large country in terms of landmass or population, federalism is logical. But in smaller countries like Spain or Britain, devolution or federalism only help to swell regionalist sentiment, exacerbate regional differences and result in another tier of unneccesary government.

I like the concept of confederalism over a large area, with free movement between countries. This would allow people to choose the country that best suits their needs.

But I chose federalism, because I do think there's something to be said for addressing the broader affairs of a country.

If it's a very a large country in terms of landmass or population, federalism is logical. But in smaller countries like Spain or Britain, devolution or federalism only help to swell regionalist sentiment, exacerbate regional differences and result in another tier of unneccesary government.

Yeah, but I don't want to be the one that has to tell Scotland they can't have their parliament any more, or tell NI that they're being directly governed, for that matter. I'm not Spanish, so I can't say about Spain with any authority at all.

We have a semi federal system, with different 'states' having different power, or in the case of England, none at all. Switzerland is tiny compared to both Spain and the UK, and yet has a very decentralised federation with states smaller than an average British county.

I think federal governments suit nations that have regions which differ from each other culturally, or are separated by vast distances. It only makes sense. Otherwise, if most of the culture is homogenous, a central government makes more sense.

Confederations are for little states that are too scared to give up control of some of their interests for the strength that Federation brings.

And don't get me started on Anarchy. :rolleyes:

Federal government with a set of standard human rights that cannot be removed at any level of government.

I think federal governments suit nations that have regions which differ from each other culturally, or are separated by vast distances. It only makes sense. Otherwise, if most of the culture is homogenous, a central government makes more sense.

Regardless of whether culture is homogenous, a federal government is superior. The government has a duty to the individual, not to the culture.

The more centralized a government is, the more distance that is placed between the government and the individual.

I prefer federal governments. Provinces are free to do what they want to a point and if one falls, the others can save themselves and hold their fallen comrade to account. As all the other states in the US ought to be doing with Massachusetts (sp?). In a central government, it's much more uniform and if the whole system falls, everyone falls.

two words: central. wait, thats one word.

The government has a duty to the individual, not to the culture.

Tell that to Quebec.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one.

The more centralized a government is, the more distance that is placed between the government and the individual.

While there is a certain amount of truth to that, there is no denying that centralized governments are generally more effective at getting things done. If you take a look at ancient greece, for example, individually, they warred with each other and competed constantly, but when the persians came along they put up a good defense. (Okay, an outstanding incomparable defense). However, it took the Macedonians to unite them as one cohesive force to accomplish the conquest of Persia.

Canada would be much lesser of a place, imho, had John A. MacDonald hadn't forged a new nation out of four colonies, bought Rupert's Land, built a railroad to BC, and created the Northwest Mounted Police to maintain law and order throughout the new country. (Damn, that man was the man.) He obviously needed to make the nation by federalising it, but it was federation that created the strength needed to obtain their goals.

Tell that to Quebec.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who would disagree with you on that one.

Why would Quebec disagree?

EDIT: Do the majority of Quebec's citizens believe that government is responsive only to cultural issues?

While there is a certain amount of truth to that, there is no denying that centralized governments are generally more effective at getting things done. If you take a look at ancient greece, for example, individually, they warred with each other and competed constantly, but when the persians came along they put up a good defense. (Okay, an outstanding incomparable defense). However, it took the Macedonians to unite them as one cohesive force to accomplish the conquest of Persia.

I didn't think that the city-states of Greece represented a federal style government. I don't know much about them, to be honest.

Canada would be much lesser of a place, imho, had John A. MacDonald hadn't forged a new nation out of four colonies, bought Rupert's Land, built a railroad to BC, and created the Northwest Mounted Police to maintain law and order throughout the new country. (Damn, that man was the man.) He obviously needed to make the nation by federalising it, but it was federation that created the strength needed to obtain their goals.

I don't understand how that makes a good case against federalism.

Why would Quebec disagree?

EDIT: Do the majority of Quebec's citizens believe that government is responsive only to cultural issues?

The Quebec political culture revolves around the preservation and protection of the french language and culture. Canada is a bilingual country, officially, however the french government has used the 'notwithstanding clause' in our consititution to remove english from road signs. This is obviously a case of culture over individuality.

Now that isn't to say that individualism falls by the wayside, but language and culture plays a huge part in politics, otherwise there wouldn't be a separist party in power.

I didn't think that the city-states of Greece represented a federal style government. I don't know much about them, to be honest.

They were independant city-states. About as democratic and close to the individual as any government has ever been. They accomplished a whole lot more when they were unified under Alexander.

I don't understand how that makes a good case against federalism.

I wasn't trying to tear down federalism per se, I believe in it. I was trying to say that centralization can be more productive than decentralization. Thus, Canada accomplished far more by centralizing to some degree. (Otherwise, they could have existed as independant colonies... perhaps to eventually be absorbed into the United States.)

They were independant city-states. About as democratic and close to the individual as any government has ever been. They accomplished a whole lot more when they were unified under Alexander.

There was no federal government standing over the city-states, and Sparta was decidedly undemocratic.

Which is better and why? Assuming that both run on democratic principles.

Depends on the state. Some states are suited towards one and others toward the other.

Why does the term "Central" anything give me such a feeling of revulsion?

Ours not to reason why...

The Quebec political culture revolves around the preservation and protection of the french language and culture. Canada is a bilingual country, officially, however the french government has used the 'notwithstanding clause' in our consititution to remove english from road signs. This is obviously a case of culture over individuality.

Now that isn't to say that individualism falls by the wayside, but language and culture plays a huge part in politics, otherwise there wouldn't be a separist party in power.

And that couldn't be handled better by a federalized government over a centralized one?

How the Hades did poll option #4 fare so poorly? :(

There was no federal government standing over the city-states, and Sparta was decidedly undemocratic.

You're missing the point... I'm not saying that the greek city-states were federal. I'm saying that a federalized government is more centralized than independent city-states, and can accomplish much more than breaking society down into smaller units.

And essentially Sparta was a consitutional monarchy. There was definitely a degree of democratization. And who said anything about democracy anyway? I'm debating that increased degrees of central authority can accomplish more than breaking society down into smaller units.

http://www.elysiumgates.com/~helena/Revolution.html

EDIT: Okay, I brought up democracy. My bad :)

And that couldn't be handled better by a federalized government over a centralized one?

As I mentioned in my first post, yes. Since Canada is a society that stretches over vast geographic distances, and in the case of Quebec, cultural ones, a federal government suits it better than a completely centralized one.

Central government! yay.

Well, truthfully I am more a "right kind of government for the right situation". Some things require central governments, others require others.

Anarchy for my dreamworld, where other states won't interfere. Tiny independent governments for the optimal real world state. Much like pre-Alexander Greece, or medieval Italy.

Oh, and going out to conquer others is a bad thing, so that is another reason why I don't like Alexander...

Central Government.

No pandering to backwoodsmen with peculiar institutions.
Just fall in and follow the rules made in the Capital - with zero tolerance for local sillyness.

Just as a "by the way". When it comes to ancient greek city states, it was this era which saw the first federation. The city states in Boeotia formed a federation in the 4th century BC. Each city was given a number of "representatives" (can't remember their exact name) depending its population. Just thought I'd clear that up :) .