It certainly does not respect a man's freedom

It depends on the federation and what it has in place. A constitution can be used to ensure rights / freedoms of citizens for example.

I agree to you, to an extent. The federal government does not ‘respect’ the individual, because it has no need to.

That’s the role of the federal state.

The individual states, or more local institutions deal with the individual.

The role of the federal state IMO is to maximise happiness for as many as possible

Done through policies such as, universal healthcare, budget application, tax policy, etc.

As long as MORE people are economically well off, I personally don’t care about giving them uber freedoms.

Right, so it must be utilitarian

Not neccessarily egalitarian, but it could be of course

Sure, like anything really

It doesn’t HAVE to be egalitarian to be utilitarian.

But, generally those go together

And what I’d support.

Right, so that's one of the issues of utilitarianism. Both within and without the group of utilitarians (e.g. federalists), there's a fundamental disagreement about egalitarianism, and this causes many injustices

Some believe that a convergence to equality (whichever one) is good, some don't, and this divide questions the legitimacy of utilitarianism within its own governance

And then there are anti-utilitarians (like me) who question the legitimacy of the whole governance.
Reconciling all these groups on any level is impossible.

I agree, which is probably why we will just get slow doses of it over time.

Doses of what?

Egalitarianism

In my view, this is the way society is headed anyway.

It *seems* whether people disagree with egalitarianism or not, they’re slowly getting more of it.

For example, more and more countries are becoming socially liberal, something that pushes egalitarianism.

That seems impossible, there will always be those with most of the power, and those with virtually none

The argument for that is, the power difference can be lowered

Both socially and economically

And that’s what you see happening today. Government and parties attempting to do that.

It's a paradox, if you strive to create equality of power and you need power to do so, then you're creating a power imbalance

The harder you try to create a power equality, the less you can actually have it

The argument for that then would be, remove the barriers to getting that power. IE, allow people to run for office and government.

So even if there’s a power imbalance there, anyone could get that by running for office and getting elected by their peers.

That's too inefficient, no one would win

Why not? One offers something the other does not, something more beneficial to the voter.

It’s a free market of ideas. 😉

Who decides who has the best arguments?

The voters.

Then that's a power imbalance

How so? Everyone can vote equally?

Because the losers are not "morally wrong", they just lose

For example

It's the most simple example, but it also happens on a large scale unless tempered