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.

Right, so federalism wouldn't be anti federal state, just anti... radical self-governance

Yes.

It’s obviously more centralised than I imagine he would like.

I mean, what one would like or wouldn't like is a tough question for a debate in itself (for example you're utilitarian, and I'm mostly anti-utilitarian, with virtually no exceptions, and this would certainly cause a heated exchange of opinions), but at least when discussing these things, how these principles overlap should certainly be understood first

As I understand it, its in the very nature of federalism to see people as numbers, not as beings to respect equally under all circumstances

Yeah agreed. You need a base understanding, somewhere to stand and then build from.

And I put no emphasis on "equally", but on "respect"

A federation, by its very nature, does not respect man, unless I have a fundamental misunderstanding about that

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