At the end of the day, Federalism embraces the core of Democratic values, than does the direct-Democratic system, a zero-sum game of national politick. Self-governance, the core of the American way, tells us the 17th Amendment must go.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49630094

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/08/dominic-raab-says-legislation-to-block-no-deal-brexit-may-be-challenged-in-court-video

That's for you two, @ETBrooD & @Jokerfaic, along with any passerby. Scroll up for my comments on your conversation about "Democracy."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-clash-parliament-today-protesters-democratic-lads-football-alliance-latest-a9095776.html

Good

And, this is what people should begin to recognize as the petri dish of America's corporate globalism, the firms with monopolies state-side, due to indirect planning of the economy through regulation, within our very government, who've grown to reach outside our borders and sacrifice our interests, feeding the monstrous regimes (PRC, for example) that inevitably rival us, with impunity, @ETBrooD. There are arguments to be made both for and against this system, as focusing on the interests of economies of scale has a compounding and perpetual effect of growth, but the long-term consequences just may outweigh it.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9888602/health-tourist-623k-unpaid-nhs-bill/

See this is the issue we need to address

The Republic won't be able to save the people until it has rid itself of the federation.

The US should've never been a federation, it was a mistake

So, you'd consider yourself an anti-federalist, despite knowing what the consequences would've been long ago? I'm not a nationalist in the sense that self-governance is out the window.

We'd be a full-blown fascist State under an entirely anti-federalist system.

I consider all first aggression to be immoral, and federations can only impose themselves with aggression

A lesser evil is not a good, it doesn't work that way

Just like democracy is only the lesser of a number of evils

We need to progress further towards true freedom, America stands for it but doesn't act it

If not even America is willing to push for more freedom, what hope does humankind have as a whole?

The closest you will come to true freedom is a federalist, decentralized government, of which the liberty lovers are enabled to self-govern, while eliminating the mechanisms by which feed the power of the artful few to impose upon the many. You will find a taste of true freedom in Washington's Farewell Address of 1796.

I don't think any federation can defend freedom

American federalism is also by design, just as any other, but it retains the greatest freedom for one to govern oneself. We've strayed from federalism, and that is the problem, the interests of few districts infringing upon those of hundreds.

You can't be "allowed" to self-govern, you either do or you don't. If you need to be allowed, then you're not self-governed.

It's not a matter of being allowed, it's a matter of retaining a system that cannot violate your ability to self-govern, one we do not have as we continue to stray away from federalism.

I'm not sure why you're talking about this as a "few vs many" situation

The many, the few, it doesn't matter

Did you not read what I wrote, regarding the 17th Amendment?

Look

Whether few infringe on many, or many infringe on few, it's the same thing

Morally speaking

The many cannot infringe upon the few under American federalism, nor can the few upon the many; that's the point.

Unless you're a utilitarian, in which case I'd love to have a debate about the meaning of numbers

I'm not a fan of utilitarianism, and if I was, I'd be an anti-federalist and side with Wilsonian-populism.

Well ok, so no one should infringe on anything or anyone, right?

Correct. If a commune wishes to practice an internalized and isolated iteration of socialism; fine. This is about leaving people to live according to how they see fit, as it was meant to be. As I said, the economic interests of a firm in New York should have no sway upon 25 other Senators from fly-over country, in seeking a regulation that secures a monopoly for them, yet leaves the constituency disadvantaged within those other States and Districts, with their entrepreneurs unable to enter and compete in various industries relating to those regulated on behalf of those interests in New York.

Anyway, I've got to get going.

Why would you be anti-federal if you were utilitarian?

I've got to take a family member in for surgery, so we'll pick this up in the future.

Because the needs of the many should trump those of the few, if you're a utilitarian.

I’m utilitarian and I believe the federal state is the best way to achieve my aims.

Federalism is anti to federal state.

I know the words seem to confuse people, as they assume the meaning behind them.

Anyway, taking off!