6 ms·

I want politics and taxation to be more local in the smallest division practical, with extreme limits being placed on the power and scope of larger political or

by syshum 4y ago

I want politics and taxation to be more local in the smallest division practical, with extreme limits being placed on the power and scope of larger political organizations. In short I fully support US Style Federalism and oppose the move to make the US Federal Government all powerful If I was in the EU I would support sovereignty of the nation states,and oppose efforts to make the EU Government all powerful the move to make governments larger and all encompassing including calls for a 1 world government, are IMO a threat to individual freedom and will not have the desired effect you seem to think

sgjohnson 4y ago
Fun fact, US states have more freedom from the Federal government than EU member states have from the EU. US states can basically just ignore or refuse to enforce the federal law with little to no consequences (immigration sanctuary states/cities, Texas no longer treating suppressors as NFA items, etc.), but EU member states can't. EU law is binding to all of them and there's no escape from it.
- derriz 4y ago
  That's quite a stretch. US states cannot just ignore federal law - unless the federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - a federal institution. There are effectively no limits to US federal powers - while the treaties governing the EU enshrine the principle of subsidiarity[1] - and the powers granted to the EU are specified in treaties. A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition, the EU has no competence in this area. Or the idea of the EU imposing a health care system like the Affordable Care Act or deciding drug laws or gun control laws is unthinkable. An individual cannot be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for breaking EU law the way the feds can do in the US, regardless of state law. There are no EU prisons. By any measure the US is far more centralized than the EU - money is power as they say and 64% of government receipts in the US are at the federal level while the EU budget represents only 2% of government spending in the block. [1] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-principle-of-subsidiarity https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-pri...
  - blibble 4y ago
    EU budget is far craftier than that member state departments that are under its sole control are still funded by national budgets the 2% is just the head of the snake
    - derriz 4y ago
      The EU budget is tiny - under €150B euro per year[1]. And what's more it has being falling in absolute terms in the last number of year. While the US federal government spends over $20 trillion a year. This isn't comparable at any level - regardless of any snake-anatomy analogy. I'm not sure what your definition of a "member state department" is? But knowing something of the political set-up in a number of EU countries, none are under the "sole control" of the EU (commission I guess you mean?). [1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/eu-budget-added-value/fact-check_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/eu-budget-added...
      - seoaeu 4y ago
        Your point still stands, but US federal spending is more like $4-7 trillion depending on the year. I assume you went based on Google’s answer box, which somehow confuses total GDP with government spending.
      - syshum 4y ago
        Doesnt the EU pass unfunded liabilities back onto the member states? Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program that the member states then have to fund with domestic taxes? Generally speaking for the federal government, if they want to pass a program or requirement the federal government must also pay for that, for example the federal government could not require the state governments to put in bike lane on all road with out giving the states the money to do it. That is why the Federal government is so large.. Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national defense, something the EU nations never do
      - blibble 4y ago
        that's because agencies used to implement federal policy (e.g. the FDA) are attributed to the federal government budget, whereas the EU member state equivalents that implement EU policy get attributed to national budgets the EU doesn't fund enforcement of the GDPR, the national information commissioners do not having to pay to implement its policies makes the EU look many, many times more efficient than it actually is
- orangepurple 4y ago
  The EU projects power in the same way the Federal government projects the majority of its power: under the threat of withholding funding for large projects
- 323 4y ago
  > EU law is binding to all of them and there's no escape from it. Only in theory, in practice EU countries break EU law all the time, with minimal consequences. Some like Poland even openly, it recently said something like "we'll rather pay the fine than respect this particular EU law". EU states remain fully sovereign.
pibechorro 4y ago
this is the only sane way forward.
rmah 4y ago
The idea that more power in the hands of local governments seems attractive. Even knowing better, it still seems attractive to me... You imagine people knowing the lawmakers better. You think that the lawmakers will be more connected to the community. That they'll be more likely to protect the freedoms that they also want to enjoy. At first blush, this all seems reasonable. However, if you look at history, the actual practice is the opposite of that. When power is mostly exercised locally (at the town level), over time, laws are passed to regulate the minutia of daily life. When shops can be open. Laws about who can work in which trade. Laws about who can use "public" infrastructure and when. Laws about what you can do with your pets. Laws down to what colors and fabrics your cloths are made of. And, of course, laws to protect their hold on power. It turns out that people in power at local levels are nosy parkers who will try to force everyone they can to live the way they think is best. And they become generationally powerful. Sad but it's the historical reality. Personally, my speculation is that it's because most people try to exercise all the power they're given. And since those local lawmakers don't have to think about "big" issues in a broader sense, they just make laws about "small" issues and deal with big issues only when they are pushed in front of them.
- syshum 4y ago
  Well 2 things. First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc. Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop... And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  According to Rawls, to make good laws, we need to make laws behind a veil of ignorance - law makers need to consider things at an abstract level. It's very difficult to get that level of abstraction when everyone knows the particularities of everyone else at the local level. There's also the question of the size of the talent pool that you draw your leaders from.

by syshum 4y ago

sgjohnson 4y ago

Fun fact, US states have more freedom from the Federal government than EU member states have from the EU. US states can basically just ignore or refuse to enforce the federal law with little to no consequences (immigration sanctuary states/cities, Texas no longer treating suppressors as NFA items, etc.), but EU member states can't. EU law is binding to all of them and there's no escape from it.

derriz 4y ago
That's quite a stretch. US states cannot just ignore federal law - unless the federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - a federal institution. There are effectively no limits to US federal powers - while the treaties governing the EU enshrine the principle of subsidiarity[1] - and the powers granted to the EU are specified in treaties. A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition, the EU has no competence in this area. Or the idea of the EU imposing a health care system like the Affordable Care Act or deciding drug laws or gun control laws is unthinkable. An individual cannot be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for breaking EU law the way the feds can do in the US, regardless of state law. There are no EU prisons. By any measure the US is far more centralized than the EU - money is power as they say and 64% of government receipts in the US are at the federal level while the EU budget represents only 2% of government spending in the block. [1] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-principle-of-subsidiarity https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-pri...
- blibble 4y ago
  EU budget is far craftier than that member state departments that are under its sole control are still funded by national budgets the 2% is just the head of the snake
  - derriz 4y ago
    The EU budget is tiny - under €150B euro per year[1]. And what's more it has being falling in absolute terms in the last number of year. While the US federal government spends over $20 trillion a year. This isn't comparable at any level - regardless of any snake-anatomy analogy. I'm not sure what your definition of a "member state department" is? But knowing something of the political set-up in a number of EU countries, none are under the "sole control" of the EU (commission I guess you mean?). [1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/eu-budget-added-value/fact-check_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/eu-budget-added...
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      Your point still stands, but US federal spending is more like $4-7 trillion depending on the year. I assume you went based on Google’s answer box, which somehow confuses total GDP with government spending.
    - syshum 4y ago
      Doesnt the EU pass unfunded liabilities back onto the member states? Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program that the member states then have to fund with domestic taxes? Generally speaking for the federal government, if they want to pass a program or requirement the federal government must also pay for that, for example the federal government could not require the state governments to put in bike lane on all road with out giving the states the money to do it. That is why the Federal government is so large.. Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national defense, something the EU nations never do
    - blibble 4y ago
      that's because agencies used to implement federal policy (e.g. the FDA) are attributed to the federal government budget, whereas the EU member state equivalents that implement EU policy get attributed to national budgets the EU doesn't fund enforcement of the GDPR, the national information commissioners do not having to pay to implement its policies makes the EU look many, many times more efficient than it actually is
orangepurple 4y ago
The EU projects power in the same way the Federal government projects the majority of its power: under the threat of withholding funding for large projects
323 4y ago
> EU law is binding to all of them and there's no escape from it. Only in theory, in practice EU countries break EU law all the time, with minimal consequences. Some like Poland even openly, it recently said something like "we'll rather pay the fine than respect this particular EU law". EU states remain fully sovereign.

pibechorro 4y ago

this is the only sane way forward.

rmah 4y ago

The idea that more power in the hands of local governments seems attractive. Even knowing better, it still seems attractive to me... You imagine people knowing the lawmakers better. You think that the lawmakers will be more connected to the community. That they'll be more likely to protect the freedoms that they also want to enjoy. At first blush, this all seems reasonable. However, if you look at history, the actual practice is the opposite of that. When power is mostly exercised locally (at the town level), over time, laws are passed to regulate the minutia of daily life. When shops can be open. Laws about who can work in which trade. Laws about who can use "public" infrastructure and when. Laws about what you can do with your pets. Laws down to what colors and fabrics your cloths are made of. And, of course, laws to protect their hold on power. It turns out that people in power at local levels are nosy parkers who will try to force everyone they can to live the way they think is best. And they become generationally powerful. Sad but it's the historical reality. Personally, my speculation is that it's because most people try to exercise all the power they're given. And since those local lawmakers don't have to think about "big" issues in a broader sense, they just make laws about "small" issues and deal with big issues only when they are pushed in front of them.

syshum 4y ago
Well 2 things. First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc. Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop... And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government
kybernetikos 4y ago
According to Rawls, to make good laws, we need to make laws behind a veil of ignorance - law makers need to consider things at an abstract level. It's very difficult to get that level of abstraction when everyone knows the particularities of everyone else at the local level. There's also the question of the size of the talent pool that you draw your leaders from.