this sentence is innocuous or stupid depending on whether you mean voluntary or involuntary governance.
As opposed to the Articles of Confederation? No.
A good starting point is to use terms correctly. Federalism is the centralized aspect of government.
I encourage you to retake any intro politics class. Federalism doesnt mean federal governance. It means dividing the power structure among many actors; federal and state govts, seperation of powers, constitutional representation, etc. As opposed to having all lesser govts subservient to the top (king, congress, dictator, first-among-equals, etc).
innocuous; 1. Having no adverse effect; harmless. 2. Not likely to offend or provoke to strong emotion; insipid.
I dont understand your use of this term in context. please redefine
and i mean any style of governance
What about the articles of confederation? The federalists wanted a federal government, while the anti-federalists did not.
I encourage you to retake any intro to political history class.
Federalism in the 1780s
Federalism was the most influential political movement arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation. Leading Federalists tended to be (or be sympathetic to) merchants, traders, craftsmen and manufacturers, and capital-holders. In their opinion, only a far stronger national government could address the many, and growing, crises roiling the infant United States, which they identified as:
- faltering domestic security
- uncertain economic conditions and investment climate
- fragmented markets and hampered internal commerce
- poor and declining international credibility
- failure to provide for the common defense against Native or European threats
- lack of protection for property and coin lent out or otherwise risked
- inter-state feuding over land claims, contributions, etc
It was a movement pro the centralizing of government powers.
voluntary government is that which is benign and which is the only form of government libertarians can condone in good conscience.
involuntary government is the evil of enslaving ones fellow man. which you seem to be at ease with.
From: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203491/federalism
mode of political organization that unites separate states (emphasis added) or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity…
Federalism: This dictionary defines as:
1• of, relating to, or denoting the central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation
2 advocacy of a federal system of government.• in Canada, support of confederation in opposition to Quebec separatism.
Federalism is about strengthening the federal aspect of government (and is the opposite action of decentralization)
Also there were the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers. These papers also provide clarity too on what Federalism is.
No it was HOW we got the federal government
This means you are an idiot, federalism is the centralization of power…
I believe this video explains in depth what you are trying to convey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHuTs3rSiO0 (“Constitution Lecture 5: Federalism vs. Nationalism” by Shane Killian)
so is this federalism or nationalism then?, or rather did Shane miss something out…
Shane is apparently too stupid for Anarchy, there apparently was an argument for Extreme Statism or Extreme Statism as Shane believes…
Watch the video.
He talks about how the Nationalists changed their name to Federalists to garner support.
answer the question directly, is federalism a form of centralised government?
I gave you a video explaining the point, and that the name was changed. I did answer it. It was originally a term used to support a federation of states with a weak central government that the states had power over, and was changed to mean a centralized form of government (“federal” government). I never said one was a form of the other (strawman).
Like how the term National Defense today has been opted by Neoconservatives to mean “offensive/pre-emptive war” (or something to that effect), instead of actual defense to make their policy seem more desirable.
So when individual states come together to form a federation, say for the purpose of creating a common defense, is not a centralization of political power? When several Soviet states broke off the Soviet Union, was that not a de-centralization of political power?
Hmm, I posted a while ago a theory on why states are ubiquitous nowadays. Basically, I think it’s because markets were weaker in past times given the technological state and general knowledge of those eras. That translates into reduced incentives to become an active player on the market (e.g. defense services) and failure to propagate information fast enough (the absence of stock markets and efficient means of communication). The only thing one could have wished besides basic needs and basic entertainment was power over a given population, since everything else was either abundent (e.g. free land) or completely absent and undiscovered yet (e.g. computers, crude oil, cars etc.).
But those times are long gone and I believe a market would provide sufficient equilibrium of power.
confederalsocialist posted a vid about this subject on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIop8XJqpPQ&feature=channel_page
the fact that anarchies, wen they do occur, happen at the edges of civilization like wild west,iceland,ireland, certainly shows the pervasiveness and inevitability of the state once it does take ahold.