Comments on: Union blues

By: Meban

Meban — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:13:31 +0000

Niccceee pagee

By: james

james — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:03:38 +0000

The real concern over EU federalism is not in federalism per say. Its in the perceived loss of democracy. The concern over the EU federalism is in the power structure. In the US, elected representatives set the laws that define future regulations. Contrast this with the EU, where the agencies (Brussels) set the laws. In effect, the EU bureaucracy rules the EU federation. Keep in mind, During the height of the Soviet Union, it too was considered a federal government.

By: FDL

FDL — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:39:55 +0000

“The will of the majority has no relation whatsoever to the truth— especially when said majority has been educated in government indoctrination camps.” This is certainly a true statement in certain areas, like evolution. But in political theory? I’m not so sure that Mr. Weininger’s statement has any meaning. (Of course, if I’m right, then if Iraqis pick a sharia-based judicial system the US will have to live with it. Seems unlikely. Maybe there is absolute truth in political theory—at least according to the ruling party in the US.)

By: Steady Eddie

Steady Eddie — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:00:52 +0000

Once again, the lack of historical memory in current, shallow, self-serving political “debate” is appalling. James Madison, Federalist 10 (only what is probably the most famous single essay in the Federalist Papers): “…the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than the latter…. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens…. the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it… In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.” Madison was identifying a basic insight into human nature that was certainly never dependent on anything like a “national identity,” much less any characteristic then or later distinctive to the US. In Madison’s most insightful view, diversity (rather than homogeneity) of federal components strengthens the potential of a larger republic to protect minority rights against the tyranny of the majority.

By: clew

clew — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:40:23 +0000

Besides, teenagers in Western Europe seem to have learned all the common European languages, and I personally expect a fascinating creole of the lot of them plus txting. More on WWI and WWII; they cut down the linguistic variety in the US a whole lot: many non-English schools and newspapers shut down out of fear or US patriotism or increased expense, and never started up again.

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:51:32 +0000

Surely for a functioning pan-European democracy to exist a common European language is needed. For starters, Switzerland? Canada? India?

By: james

james — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:33:48 +0000

Surely for a functioning pan-European democracy to exist a common European language is needed. No such language now exists, in contrast to present day USA. I would guess that functioning democracy was less of a priority in 1776 America than we would hope it is in Europe today, or at least that the concept of democracy is very differant.

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:16:19 +0000

No, that’s not a good reason at all. The will of the majority has no relation whatsoever to the truth—especially when said majority has been educated in government indoctrination camps.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:26:27 +0000

Because it doesn’t seem to be a massive mistake to a majority of the population of the USA, perhaps?

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:55:33 +0000

I’m puzzled. Why should we reject out of hand the idea that the modern centralized US is a massive mistake and an illegitimate usurpation of powers? That seems pretty obviously true to me. Now, granted, I’m a radical Anti-Federalist libertarian, and the authors of the quoted article may well not share my beliefs. If that’s so, they are indeed hypocrites. But it seems wrong to me to exclude the possibility that they might be consistent decentralists, or to dismiss arguments against EU centralization just by noting that they also apply against American centralization.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:38:52 +0000

Quoth Jane Galt: “And since federalism in America involves moving more power away from the center, while federalism in Europe involves moving more power to it…” Please support the first half of this contention with recent examples; it would be helpful if you could distinguish between movements that carry a partisan (particularly Republican) advantage, as opposed to those enacted to further federalism. Otherwise, if yould be possible to claim that federalism in America involves moving power into the hands of a single party, while federalism in Europe involves something else.

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:34:04 +0000

As for Europe’s “hundreds of years of separate cultural incubation,” well, Anglo-American culture in North America didn’t start in 1776, either.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 12:32:34 +0000

It amazes me that so many people seem to have forgotten WWI and WWII. How many people from the present EU area were killed in those wars, in the space of 30 years? Tens of millions? Western Europe has gone through a bloody war phase, and is trying to make sure that there is no repeat.

By: Jane Galt

Jane Galt — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 12:23:55 +0000

Squaring the circle? Surely the objection of the right is to the power anti-democratically arrogated to itself by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, not the fact that they have chosen a federal structure. And since federalism in America involves moving more power away from the center, while federalism in Europe involves moving more power to it, I don’t see how liking one and disliking the other are incompatible opinions.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:19:39 +0000

Jimmy – Deudney is wrong in one fairly critical respect. The US in 1776 was not quite so close a reflection of the UK in terms of culture and ethnicity as it’s made out to be, and the US became more, not less, diverse over the course of the 19th century. In 1787, the US had one state with a German speaking majority, another with a large Dutch speaking community, still another where Swedish was widely spoken, and no less than three states where sizeable areas were francophone. This is on top of the large African and aboriginal minorities present in much of the union. At the time of independence, the US hoped that Upper and Lower Canada – now Ontario and Quebec, but at the time resolutely francophone and Catholic areas – would join the union soon and passed bills to ease the transition. The founders certainly understood the US to be a mutlicultural, multiethnic and even multilingual federation – not a nation-state as understood much later in the late 19th century. As time passed, multiculturalism became still more firmly established in the US. Until the Civil War, public affaris were conducted in French in Louisiana and in much of New England. As late as the 1970 census, there were still counties in three US states with francophone majorities. There were monolingual German-speaking third generation Americans until WWI, and in a large section of the plains Norwegian was effectively the sole community language until the beginning of the 20th century. The territories the US annexed from Mexico had Spanish-speaking majorities, and the state of New Mexico still interprets the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hildago as mandating Spanish-bilingual government services. The post-Civil War period – the era when the supremacy of the Federal government finally went unchallenged – was the period when the US was probably the least linguistically and culturally uniform in its history. The EU is already arguably more uniform than the US was in 1880.