The founding fathers set up America as a distributed system. It's no accident that as the federal government has taken more power from the states that it has gone to shit.
(Ratified in 1913 during the heyday of the Progressives, popular election of the Senator, turning it into a stuffy mini-House instead of representing the states by virtue of being elected by state legislatures.)
Sure, that was a problem, but was this cure along with the rest of the Progressives' grand plan of centralizing power in the Federal government worth the cost?
Are you happy with what our now nearly all powerful central government is doing and what everyone can easily extrapolate for the future? (Well, until it runs out of money, then the real fun begins.)
> It's no accident that as the federal government has taken more power from the states that it has gone to shit.
At which point in the process did this happen? The Civil War and Reconstruction, when the federal government took power from the states and abolished slavery? Or the Civil Rights Act, when the federal government took power from the states and abolished Jim Crow?
I'm not sure it really matters that we agree upon some "point" where it all goes to shit. Like the web, I think it's pretty clear that this sort of thing happens organically over time, and it's hard to pinpoint some particular cornerstone, but easy to highlight contributing factors.
Yes, I should probably clarify that I'm not in favor of oppressing black people. Rather, I'm skeptical of arguments that it's a bad idea for the federal government to take power from the states, because historically the issue of states' rights has been synonymous with the issue of oppressing black people. Forgive me for the sarcasm.
I think there needs to be a strong balance. For example, I think the "centralization" of EU has been great for unifying citizens across the continent, unifying trade, making it easy to travel and work in other countries, and perhaps the most important aspect - stopping European wars.
So far it seems like a pretty democratic system, and the laws tend to be much better, and with a lot more common sense than the ones being passed in US right now. But I'd be really wary about making it anymore centralized than it is.
Removing barriers is a good thing. So removal of trade tariffs and border checks and visas within EC is a good thing.
Centralized rule is usually less beneficial, to say the least. Besides adding another layer of bureaucrats that need to be fed, it removes diversity. If, for instance, you think that legalization of marijuana in Netherlands is a good thing, imagine a EC directive that overrlues this decision.
The most historically successful of surviving democracies, Switzerland (850 years of largely uninterrupted democracy) is hugely decentralized, with most decisions made by voting or referenda on municipal or cantonal level. Not coincidentally, it sports huge differences in local laws: e.g. such a basic thing as women suffrage took 25 years to be gradually accepted in all cantons.
If you want a strongly centralized, standardized government, take a look at USSR (late) or China (quite alive).
A lot of the US have an idealic view of the EU. Funnily enough a lot of people in the UK and current politics have suggested the EU has gone too far and has got parts of it wrong. I tend to agree with them, although unlike them I'd rather not leave.
Don't get caught up with the grass always being greener, we can both be doing better.
the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) is gaining traction over here, on the back of a single policy - get Britain out of the EU. It's not all holding hands and dancing round the may pole:
- Much of our legal system is now amended in Brussels, rather than London. This should be fairly obvious but the UK != Belgium != Finland != Lithuania, and making sweeping laws across all of the above can/has caused some serious issues.
- We were lucky not to have moved over to the Euro, as currently France and Germany are being lumbered with the task of keeping the currency afloat amid financial meltdowns in Greece, Italy, and Spain. France and Germany caught the short straws here.
- It costs a lot of money to stay in the EU - it's difficult to get exact numbers but between 6 and 14 billion GBP per year are the figures I've seen.
- The European legal system can block the UK government from making rulings, which has both practical and political implications. In the widely-publicised extradition case of Abu Hamza (a known islamic fundamentalist, supporter of Al-Qaeda and general dick), the UK moved to extradite him to the USA to face trial but this was blocked by the European court (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/08/abu-hamza-human-rig...).
Now the EU has its benefits too which should be weighed against, but let me just emphasise that it's not all rosy.
