First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc.
Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop...
And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear
I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government
I am the person that made the claim, I am pretty sure I understand what I am trying to talk about.
This seems to a terminology / definitional problem we have, something I am trying to get beyond because like I said from the beginning a "union" in the US is not the same as a "Union" in the UK/EU, that is my point from the start
So when we have these international discussions and people from the UK/EU are aghast that anyone in the US would be opposed to Unions they are talking from what they understand from the Unions on their nation, which IS NOT what we have here in the US.
My attempts to convey the differences has failed with terminology issues and technicality gotchas largely due to a massive political bias in favor of unionization so any time anyone tries to convey a negative about a union is gets drowned out either by people not in the US that have no idea what a US Labor union really is like, or by people in the US that only understand the concept of a US Labor union but not the reality of it
That is why I oppose "real democracy", I prefer a Constitutional Republic with powers widely distributed in a federalist model.
>if the majority goes psychotic nothing will help us
No, that is the exact thing a Constitution, Distributed Power, and Checks / Balances is designed to counter, to ensure the majority can not simply force their will over the minority.... and the smallest minority is the individual
What is actually disgusting is your rejection of natural individual rights in favor of majoritarian rule
Doesnt the EU pass unfunded liabilities back onto the member states?
Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program that the member states then have to fund with domestic taxes?
Generally speaking for the federal government, if they want to pass a program or requirement the federal government must also pay for that, for example the federal government could not require the state governments to put in bike lane on all road with out giving the states the money to do it.
That is why the Federal government is so large..
Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national defense, something the EU nations never do
They absolutely can and do. State government are under no compulsion to enforce federal law, nor do they have aid federal law enforcement. Sure the FBI can still arrest you but as a practical matter the federal government relies heavily on local law enforcement for support in their efforts and task forces.
The state governments can neuter federal enforcement by refusing to supply personnel and equipment or other support to federal law enforcement task forces and actions
Conversely the federal government also supplies (i.e bribes) local law enforcement with money, and gear to grease the wheel for that support.
The supremacy you are referring to with the Supreme court is about when Federal Law and State law conflict then Federal law would win over State Law. Personally I think this is bad but until there is a constitutional amendment to change it that is the reality. However that supremacy does not mean state law enforcement or governments must enforce federal law, only that they can not overrule/supplant a federal law with their own
>> A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition
Well according to the Current Draft our federal government did not have the power either. It is funny you mention trade, you do know that ACA is a trade regulation the constitutional power that allows ACA to exist is the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution, that was MASSIVELY expanded in power by the court in the abomination / disgraceful 1942 Wickard decision which effectively made every activity a commercial interstate activity that can be regulated by the federal government.
Personally if the court is in the mood for over turning precedent someone should take a case to them aimed squarely at over turning that abomination, putting the federal government back into their proper scope and place
In mixed enviroments being able to use Powershell on both Linux and Windows allows for people to only have to learn one scripting environment, and allow you to share functions, modules, and tooling between the systems.
that alone is a big WIN for PS imo
Also I find Powershell to be more enjoyable to use (I like the verbosity, the help system, and passing objects instead of text streams.. I know I am crazy), and easier to train new Admins on PS than bash or python.
That depends on the context, I have a feeling we differ widely on what we view as the "crazy people" that are taking over given the natural demographics of HN and that fact that I am generally politically unaligned with most people here given I am a individualist libertarian politically
that is the beauty of local control, if School Board in another state does something you do not like, good news it does not effect you. If the Dept of Labor does something nationally you do not like well there is nothing you can do about it as your power is diluted due to national level, and you can not move...
I have never had one actually require it, often the installers will claim that but back in the day I would just say "sure here is my linux machine have fun installing your windows software on it" and magically they did not need to install anything any more....
I want politics and taxation to be more local in the smallest division practical, with extreme limits being placed on the power and scope of larger political organizations. In short I fully support US Style Federalism and oppose the move to make the US Federal Government all powerful
If I was in the EU I would support sovereignty of the nation states,and oppose efforts to make the EU Government all powerful
the move to make governments larger and all encompassing including calls for a 1 world government, are IMO a threat to individual freedom and will not have the desired effect you seem to think
>>We have unions for a particular company for example, here is the Wikipedia link for the Nationwide Union
The question I would then have is do the employee of Nationwide have to join the Nationwide Union or could they if they wanted choose a different union, or no union at all. Practicality or downsides aside is it legal for them do make that choice.
That is a misinterpretation of that ruling, which applies to non-union members being forced to pay dues
Union Shops, where by in Non-Right to work States the union negotiates with the Employer (private not public) that all employees of the group will be represented by the employer the employer can still be required to force employees to join the union with in 30 days, normally this is an automatic process for "union shops"
Again this varies by state, and Right to work states can not have such a provision, however Janus decision DID NOT outlaw union shops.
Also none of your comment seems to refute or attempt to explain the differences between UK or other EU unions and US unions, which is the context we are discussion, gotcha technicalities do not go to this over all conversation which is the vast differences between how unions operate in the US vs other nations.
That is a technically in terms only. So apologies for using "closed"
[1] instead of "union"[1] shop which are functionally the same thing, and Union Shops still very much exist which is clear from my description of what I was talking about in my comment, (i.e I clearly stated employees were required to join the union post hire)
Right to Work states are a counter to Union Shops, which there is active efforts to do away with Right to Work laws
[1]Closed Shop
A company that only employs union members and requires them to secure and maintain union membership as a condition of employment.
[2]Union Shop
A company that doesn’t require employees to join a union in order to be hired, but they must join within 30 days of employment.
First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc.
Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop...
And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear
I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government