You are confused. My point is that the Articles of Confederation were a dismal failure. It took only a very few years before the former American colonies scrapped them in favor of the Constitution. It was you who defended Monkey's ridiculous "We'd be better off more like the EU than we are now."originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
I trust you have read about the Articles of Confederation? Monkey is simply wrong on this one.
Is there a particular area you’re thinking of in which the EU has more power than the US federal govt? Monetary union is clearly weaker and a big reason for ongoing Euro ‘crises’. The EU tax base is weaker. The ECJ and ECHR are weaker than the US Supreme Court. European nations have their own immigration and citizenship policies which is not the case for US states. Much easier to Brexit than for a US state to secede....
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Pareto? Gimme a hit of whatever you're smoking.originally posted by Rahsaan:
The concepts of accountability and circulation of elites are what are supposed to keep the hierarchies from being abused.
I never said these concepts are being perfectly applied in non-anarchic societies. But if we accept that hierarchies have a role in society, these are some important mechanisms for preventing tyranny and we should work towards improving them.
Way less extreme than the current GOP-driven economy here in the U.S. And with very large differences in the scale of human suffering, social mobility, health, and more. Many of my European friends and relations have little conception of how shredded the social safety net is here, or how far right economically the GOP dragged the goalposts in the last 25 years.originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Why is Scandinavia always brought out in these discussions?...We have a slightly less extreme version of neoliberalism.
Close-packed, screaming demonstrations against social distancing and health measures might thin this crowd a bit.Hopefully, the changing demo will root a lot of this out, but I thought that last time.
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Not sure what this is: anarcho-communist
Think Kropotkin rather than Marxist-Leninism. Establish communism without a state since states always cause a ruling class which creates power hierarchies. And in hierarchies elites aren't ever willing to let go of their power. Essentially M-L attempts at communism have created states like the Soviet Union that aren't communist but rather state capitalist. And as we all know, state capitalism is just an intermediary step between capitalism and capitalism.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This has gone off the deep end. Scandinavia looks bstter to us, as does most of Western Europe, because they are better than we are and because they have moved much farther toward what used to be called a social democratic state, not because they are an anarchist utopia. And, while, like Nathan, I often make jokes about wishing that states like Texas would go ahead and secede, the perils of insufficiently centralized economic institutions seems to be to have been amply demonstrated by the European responses, or lacks of it, to the financial crisis of 08-09. I guess one could argue that Greece would have been better off if it would have seceded, devalued its currency, defaulted and started from scratch. But I doubt Europe as a whole would have.
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Alas, anarchy does not seem to scale well.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
Way less extreme than the current GOP-driven economy here in the U.S. And with very large differences in the scale of human suffering, social mobility, health, and more. Many of my European friends and relations have little conception of how shredded the social safety net is here, or how far right economically the GOP dragged the goalposts in the last 25 years.originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Why is Scandinavia always brought out in these discussions?...We have a slightly less extreme version of neoliberalism.
originally posted by BJ:
I have thought about this for decades and just heard this guy interviewed, and it is like he wrote the book I've wanted to write - https://www.amazon.com/Break-Up-Secession-Division-Imperfect-ebook/dp/B07X9PWSVG
originally posted by BJ:
The Federal gov't should be a confederacy focused solely on monetary policy and defense.
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
I’m with Ken and Jeff here. As Jeff rightly pointed out, the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment 230+ years ago. The case for a loose confederacy IMO is even more attenuated than when people travelled “long distances” (read: more than 5 miles) by horse or foot. Pointing out problems that have arisen or arise with our current version of federalism is not a strong case in my view for significantly deeper states rights and less central control / coordination. If anything, it’s just a recognition we can and could have done better. In my view you can’t avoid division of political, social, philosophic, and religious thought by going smaller. You just intensify the local divisions and create more external ones among the states.
I could go on and on, but no one wants that.... I’d rather just drink Huet with Brad L when he comes to visit NY again - whenever that will be.
originally posted by Ken Schramm:
originally posted by BJ:
I have thought about this for decades and just heard this guy interviewed, and it is like he wrote the book I've wanted to write - https://www.amazon.com/Break-Up-Secession-Division-Imperfect-ebook/dp/B07X9PWSVG
Kreitner imploring us to all hang separately. Wonderful.
originally posted by BJ:
The Federal gov't should be a confederacy focused solely on monetary policy and defense.
Because the states did such a bang-up job on an interstate highway system and rural electrification.
That smacking you keep hearing is Putin licking his chops.
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
I’m with Ken and Jeff here. As Jeff rightly pointed out, the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment 230+ years ago. The case for a loose confederacy IMO is even more attenuated than when people travelled “long distances” (read: more than 5 miles) by horse or foot. Pointing out problems that have arisen or arise with our current version of federalism is not a strong case in my view for significantly deeper states rights and less central control / coordination. If anything, it’s just a recognition we can and could have done better. In my view you can’t avoid division of political, social, philosophic, and religious thought by going smaller. You just intensify the local divisions and create more external ones among the states.
I could go on and on, but no one wants that.... I’d rather just drink Huet with Brad L when he comes to visit NY again - whenever that will be.
Those divisions are smaller on a smaller scale. I have almost nothing in common culturally or economically with citizens of the west Texas Permian Basin, for example. Except that I loved FNL.
I can usually reason with people who went to State. Duke, not so much.
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Pointing out problems that have arisen or arise with our current version of federalism is not a strong case in my view for significantly deeper states rights and less central control / coordination. ...In my view you can’t avoid division of political, social, philosophic, and religious thought by going smaller. You just intensify the local divisions and create more external ones among the states.