[Political, not Politics]

[digitaldiscipline]

I came to the realization last night, on my drive home, that I'm pretty much anti-Federalist. I don't give a flying blue fuck about states' rights. The patchwork hodge-podge of legislation makes everything fifty times more bureaucratic and complicated than it needs to be (as if the national government isn't fucking convoluted enough all by itself).


Arguments in favor of Federalism:
- Looking out for local and regional interests (whether or not there's any semblance of homogeny within a state notwithstanding)
- Stronger or looser regulations on specific things based on local preference and dictat

Arguments against Federalism:
- Uniform legislation and regulation
- The Electoral College system
- Pork


Discuss.

Comments

[miamadness15.livejournal.com]

It's interesting how the term federalist itself changed meaning. During the Jeffersonian era, Republicans were the one in favour of State rights. Hamilton, on the other hand, was a federalist and believed in a single strong goverment...

I have a hard time with authority and bureaucracy whatsoever... but it might just be me.

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

Even with a single national government, I would think the election of representatives would still be looking out for local and regional interests. I mean, even if there were no state of Flordia, I'm sure there would be representatives in Congress from "Florida" and everywhere else.

I think the drawback to that is that you'd find a concentration in power in the states with larger populations (NY, CA, FL, etc).

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Local representation in national government = fine, good, and required

Local laws that differ from national law = not so much

This would have the byproduct of the SCOTUS needing to pay some serious fucking attention, not to mention all the Congresscritters. Might have to actually stop and think about trying to legislate morality, for one thing. On the pro-capitalist agenda, not having to blend forty-three different kinds of gasoline, for instance, would lower costs and simplify delivery (at least, for the fuel they're not trying to sell out the back door overseas - read something yesterday about ~1.5b cu/ft of natural gas from alaska to japan, what?)

[mighty-man.livejournal.com]

I hear you on that -- heck, look at what's required for me to get licensure in another state. In every state in the Union (except CA), I only have to take a law exam -- the competency requirement test (NAPLEX) is the same.

On the other hand, legislation will either have to be very lesse-faire (sp?) or *very* heavy handed. And I frankly don't like the latter, but that's mostly because I'm a Republican and pro-big business.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Point A: Exactly

Point B: Laissez-faire (plus accents). IMNSHO, some should be more lenient (or gone altogether), some ought to be more rigorous

[naeelah.livejournal.com]

It's not something I've given a huge amount of thought to, but the older I get, I think the less I give a damn about states' rights. What does it accomplish except to convolute things that should be simple (if there is one national age for buying cigarettes, why not one national age of consent?) Maybe there are some economical or agricultural factors or whatever that are best kept under more local control (I would have no idea), but on social issues, it just seems to help regional prejudices endure.

It seems to be that people who most often argue for states' rights are some of the most conservative. I just know that some of the federalists I've talked to have alarmed me.

[mitejen.livejournal.com]

When I worked for the textbook publisher I was astounded at the educational discrepancies between a textbook from one state (Texas, where they are not allowed to show people recycling or use the word) and Florida, where it was. Or the HUGE difference in reading and content level between California and Florida, where one state was teaching fairly complex concepts like noble gases in fifth grade, and the other was teaching 'Rocks and trees are different.' And this is something that's due, tangentially, to states' rights, because the state textbook committees vote on what book to use. I think that's cool and all, but it's pretty clear that politics heavily influences what textbooks the state adopts, which leads to a overlyheterogenous knowledge level in the population.

I didn't learn anything about the structure of this country's political system until I was in 9th grade, and my boyfriend knew it when he was 11. And I think that's partially due to micromanagement of the educational system within the states.

[ruefullyamused.livejournal.com]

As usual, I'm the resident nutjob :)

A) Also anti-Federalist
B) Somehow still in favor of local dictat, but *not* at a "state" level because that's just so goddamned arbitrary. State borders were established how long ago? On what basis? Representative of what, exactly?

What I would like to see is the dissolution of states in favor of organization into zones. Zones, just like on a local level, could then form zone-specific legislation (residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use, rural, etc.). No districts, no gerrymandering, no consideration of economic or other demographics. In my simplistic thinking, residential neighborhoods in one part of the country, say, Flint, MI, should be held to the same bare minimum standards as any other residential neighborhood (thus uniformity in building codes and infrastructure regulations, for instance). Same with the others. Same logic applies to other types of zones.

Organization of governance would be equally simplified. A genuinely representative government (one person, one vote, corporations are *not* persons) would legislate, (but on a 2/3 majority, not simple), execute and judge at a national level. What passes at a national level applies to all. Full stop. No greater or lesser variances at lower levels of organization. What isn't legislated at the national level could be legislated at the zone level, if it doesn't conflict with national law. Zone legislation then would apply to all within the zone. Full stop. No greater or lesser variances at local levels. What is neither legislated at national/zone levels would then be up to the discretion of locales. When I think locale, though, I don't think "city". I think neighborhood. One part of DC is not like another part of DC. DC, in a sense, wouldn't even exist in my thinking.

I think basically my notion of what's properly federal vs. local is based on some idea of national character and portability across distances. Math is math in Florida just as it is in Alaska, so one standard for what qualifies as an education in math. Medicine is medicine. One national licensure. Driving is driving., etc., ad nauseam. Of course, if it's mandated by the Feds, I think it should be paid by the Feds, so one Federal tax to cover it. No local. No zone. Just federal. It would be clearly itemized as the education tax. That money goes to education, not oil, not hookers, nothing else but education.

At the other extreme, there's local culture, which is why I prefer to think in terms of neighborhoods. If you like the night-life, blinking lights, street performers and music blaring from every bar, great! Live there. Expect local noise ordinances to reflect same. Don't like it? Don't expect a federal law governing national noise. Fuck that. Move to a quiet neighborhood. And so on, ad nauseam.

Plenty of room for local flavor, and still plenty of room for uniformity, plenty of room for accountability, efficiency, etc.

A long 2 cents, but all my pennies stretch ;)

[rat-bastard.livejournal.com]

I had to do a doubletake when I read that, as I haven't heard the term 'federalism' used in any modern context, at least not in quite some time, so the context that you put it in confused the hell out of me. Traditionally, federalism is supposed to favor a single united government. Having it favor the opposite doesn't even make *sense*. It's like saying "Blackism is the strong belief in the superiority of the color White".

Then again, conservatives, traditionally, are supposed to favor minimal government control over the lives of its citizens... so...

[etcet.livejournal.com]

It's possible that I was using the term incorrectly (or at least in a dated manner).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States



The rich irony of this, in light of my bitching about the misappropriation of "elitism" yesterday, is not lost on me.

[firefly-pilot.livejournal.com]

I haven't given a great deal of thought to this either, but I can tell you that even within a state you can get pretty divisive. Northern Virginia, where I live, is becoming strongly Democratic, but Virginia as a whole is traditionally Republican. Most of the state is fairly rural, but the part of it around Washington DC is the "internet capital of the world," often referred to as "the Silicon Valley of the east."

November will be interesting.

[y2kdragon.livejournal.com]

I like pork. Mmmm, bacon.