what would you say to someone arguing that if a country is so large it needs federalism to function, it should probably just be broken up into smaller countries?

33 comments

1. Your flair says United Kingdom…you still mad bro?

2. I’d say “We showed the dirty fucking Rebs what happens when you try to break up this country once before. That conversation is over.”

3. We didn’t get to be the most economically prosperous country in the world by receding into 50 different completely separate fiefdoms.

4. If you say so.

5. So like…we’re breaking up Canada, Australia, India, and Germany too?

6. I’d say people from tiny islands with a dysfunctional government should probably worry about themselves

7. So we breaking up the UK into Scotland, Wales, Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, and East Anglia?

8. I’d say that to many states would almost immediately implode and go broke and either need to take aid from foreign powers or be annexed by other states.

   I’d also ask why you think federations are bad?

9. Why is this bad that Washington and Kentucky have different cultures? Also I don’t think this is true. They are different but not SO DIFFERENT that they should be different countries

10. Apes. Together. Strong.

11. >like there are different countries in Europe that are geographically closer and less culturally different than like Washington and Kentucky.

    And yet we see those disparate countries coalescing into an increasingly federal union and not the other way around.

12. that’s kinda the whole point of federalism- that’s like saying if a car needs 4 wheels to work, it should just be broken up into 2 motorcycles

13. Oh hi Grapp!

    I’d say that federalism, when done properly, helps bridge many of the issues of trying to run such large culturally and/or geographically diverse states while maintaining many of the advantages.

14. It makes very little economic sense to do that. While people appreciate relative freedom for their states/municipalities to set laws, most economic laws and taxes create serious red tape for interstate and international Commerce when they are different. A national currency is valuable because it becomes far more stable and uniform the more people who use it, and centrally managing it is the only logical way to combat hyperinflation/stagflation/deflation. Uniform tariffs and trade rules make shipping across the country very easy, and makes costs dramatically cheaper. Uniform train and trucking laws make it easy to seamlessly ship goods through multiple states.

    The more that can be uniform and under one government, the better and more efficient our economy will be. It’s the same reason why the EU exists among countries that have far less in common than the US.

15. I don’t know you haven’t given me any arguments to argue against.

16. Tell them that it is a decision *entirely* up to the people of that country and that they have no say in it. We cherish the ideal of self-determination as a species and pushing for that against the wishes of the people who live there goes against that ideal.

17. My argument would be to point toward the US, the most powerful nation to ever exist in the history of mankind, as an example of successful federalism at a large scale. I would also argue that we are a nation that would struggle to survive as a democracy without federalism in some form. It seems strange to say that federal nations should be broken up when you have a highly successful, democratic, prototypical example of federalism staring you in the face.

18. I’d say I want Washington and Florida to be in the same country and it’s all home

19. I would say that we haven’t had an internal war since the 1860s, while the independent statelets of Europe have started dozens of wars in that span, including the two largest conflicts in human history. Federalization within a single large country is far more stable than Balkanization.

20. I don’t think the federal system is a function of the size of the US considering it was much smaller when the constitution was written. I also think you are dramatically overestimating the difference between people from Washington and Kentucky

21. I’m invoking the Monroe doctrine in this thread and you shouldn’t throw stones in a glass house.

22. King George III, we all know it’s you

23. Ol Grappy coming with the heat

24. Personally, I think this would truly solve a lot of problems, but it also might cause more.

    I joke to my husband about being an anarchist, but moreso that I believe in Feudal Tribalism. Basically everyone can join a tribe that adequately follows their own beliefs and values the best and that people should be able to freely come and go from
    these tribes as they please if their views or understanding changes. The main problem with this is that there are a ridiculous amount of ideologies that are obsessed with making other people believe what they do or live in the society they think is best. Like, we hate on Hitler for attempted world domination, but when we settle on a specific form of government and law as better than others aren’t we doing the same thing? The reality is that one rule for everyone is never going to work, and it doesn’t even in smaller countries. What makes sense for people in major cities just *doesnt* for rural farming communities. It might have been possible with more states rights and less federal oversight. Had the south won the civil war (don’t even try to make this a race thing, pleas, I’m specifically talking states rights here) and each state been left to govern its own people and the fed to provide a bit of a standard kind of like the EU does for Europe? Not that I think that’s a perfect system either

25. I’d tell them to fuck right off

26. We don’t believe our country should be a monoculture, our diversity is part of our strength. We’re also not taking suggestions on how to break up our country from anyone, thanks.

27. And what is the organizing principle that keeps those countries from simply going to war with each other?

    Some sort of treaty organization? A common economic system? A means of resolving differences in a political forum rather than on a battle field?

    That’s pretty much what you get with a federated system: each member state yields some sovereign powers (such as the power to conduct war, or to regulate economic affairs) in exchange for a common defense and unified economic interactions.

28. Germany is a federal parliamentary republic and it’s no larger than the US state of Montana. I don’t think size is important here, is what I would say. I’d also mention that the German states Schleswig-Holstein and Bayern are as dissimilar as the US states Kentucky and Washington. I’d probably ask them to explain what they mean in more detail.

29. That they are probably pissed some of our states have larger economies then their country.

    Kentucky is my home and while I don’t want a lot of California or Washington’s state laws we could all probably agree on a lot. We have no one size culture but it’s more like the a general bubble that we will all get behind.

30. That’s why we have states my man… and municipal government.

31. You should read about Switzerland. Their states (they use the term Cantons) have far more power than their national government.

32. The function of the central government is to provide defense and a joint foreign policy. That is more economically done with a federal state than with several component states competing sometimes violently. Furthermore large states outside will seek to subvert them and bully or bribe them into cooperation sometimes on the opposing sides of one another. That is what happened to Germany; it became a battlefield as powerful princes strove to assemble smaller ones into blocs, Habsburg vs France being a typical example. That was detrimental to the security of Germany as a whole for centuries as different German states ended up at war and the lower classes paid for it.

    Aside from that a federal state can standardize measurements, and facilitate commerce over a wide area.

    The advantage of the local governments in this type of system is to make sure local cultural preferences are not overwhelmed and to give people within a country a greater variety of potential lifestyles.

    A federal system renders the two complimentary.

33. E Pluribus Unum. From many, one.