Message from @ETBrooD
Discord ID: 620552821095530496
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
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!
I'm also very confused by this argument
Mine, or his?
His
I'm not utilitarian in principle, but I think I understand correctly that federalism and utilitarianism go very much hand in hand, and separating them seems very odd
I do understand however why federalism may be anti federal state
Not neccessarily anti, but... also not neccessarily pro
It would allow those federal states to exist and give people more localised control, but what powers the states have and how they’re managed, etc is up for debate. For sure.