Unitary vs. Federal Power Structures; viewpoints on States Rights
skiprob
Yes I know, what is a libertarian doing analyzing the pros and cons of different government power structures. Well it’s really quite simple, I don’t think you will get our current crop pf politicians and bureaucrats to discuss the issues without forcing them to, as it pits State and Federal Representatives and bureaucrats against one another on this issue. Additionally, nation states will someday disappear as barbaric relics, but not tomorrow. I’m also a realist and therefore realize that guys like King George and Caligula were telling us the truth about the only two guarantees in life being death and taxes.
|
Basic forms of | |
|
Power structure | |
According to Wikipedia, these are the different types of power structures which once you read them will relate to our nation states both individually and united, as all political body are called. The two important ones in reference to the issues I want to address, in my opinion, are the Federal and the Unitary as the title of this article illuminates. The Confederal however, may have a role as it denotes the Confederacy structure as the Colonies first adopted, after the revolution.
A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, 'covenant'), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the latter.
I want to interject something here, that since the creation of nation states are never determined by “unanimous” consent of their societies, they are all political associations that are not necessarily derived by ethical means. For instance from the book, and the incredible research of Stuart Laycock, the author of; All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To, it represents just how nation states are generally created and the imperialistic warmongering throughout by not only Britain as detailed in his book, but many others as common practice. Check out the recent history written, as more and more information comes to light, of the U.S. and it imperialistic approaches to dealing with the native Americans. Go figure, agents of the U.S. often lied and reneged on treaties and contracts to gain support for taking the lands of our Native Americans. Beware of the Englishman. But you must also throw in the Spanish, Dutch, French, Romans and numerous others thieves of our world. No wonder so many people do not consider taxation as theft.
A unitary state is a state governed as one single unit in which the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units such as states, cities and counties) exercise only powers that their central government chooses to delegate to them. The great majority of nation states in the world have a unitary system of government. Unitary states are contrasted with federal states (federations):
In a unitary state, the subnational units can be created and abolished and their powers may be broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Although political power in unitary states may be delegated through devolution by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.
A little of my anarchist views came out a bit there, so back to the statist world of force and coercion. How “We the People” are exactly going to get the ruling class to actually have this debate is another issue since they are the ones that control the current force and coercion.
The War Between the States a/k/a The Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression are all names various groups called it for our, thus far, only mass revolt against our own central government. “States Rights” was a major issue of this event. This issue was, “do the various states have the right” to secede. The northern States obviously did not want the Southern States to leave the Union and forced them through both gunpoint and warfare to stay in the Union. The primary question then becomes, to Save the Union, as many had claimed, di the use of the “force of arms” deny state and individual rights? Can and should people and the States that represent them, be legally held at gunpoint to maintain an association within the united States of America.
Since we have tolerated conquest throughout our history, I guess it was par for the course, whether good of bad. If we ever get tired of conquest, perhaps it would be a good idea to vote on this issue or at least take up a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all debate and place the determination into our Constitution, so that no such civil war can be done legally again.
Do we want a strong central government? If I had my druthers, I would take the Federal position and make the Federal Government subservient to the various states. States will be less likely to secede, if the Federal Government cannot run roughshod over them. Rather than using force of arms to keep them in the Union, perhaps negotiate a more favorable deal. As long a certain rights are protected by our Constitution, which will be addressed later in the article, to me this type association is preferred.
Too much power in the hands of too few people just seems to me, in the long run, to not work very well for what is in the best interests of the majority. This is an important issue yet we have never formally, other than by the Judicial Decision, which you can’t trust because of the judicial bias in favor of government, made this determination.
Each State voted in the beginning to become a State united under a Constitution and Bill of Rights with the other States to form the United States of America, however those men and the Citizens of their states signed up under specific guidelines, which one could argue, did not properly clarify or address the various specifics of States Rights or specially clarified the ability to secede. They obviously just did not address these issues significantly enough in the Constitution in my opinion to make the Constitution a binding document. Interestingly enough, those that have wielded the power within the Federal government over the decades, have both ignored and usurped both States Rights as Lincoln did by force of Arms and obviously many more individual rights, even thought the Bill of Rights specifies otherwise. I think it's time to add a couple of constitutional amendments.