The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
I was referring to the articles of confederation, not the Confederacy, and how short lived it was was my point.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example
The EU as a governing body and not just a trade group really isn’t that old yet.
and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
The needs of a modern global economy are completely different, though.
That said, I’m happy to just say we agree to disagree on whether this is broadly true or not.
I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into and how up fix those problems if not more federal power to the EU? How do you stop EU companies from jumping ship to the US for their large single investment market without a competing consolidated European one? How do we mount our own effective defense force without a central power to manage it?
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
This can still happen (and historically, as the birthplace of fascismhas, has happened) in European nations within said nations, though. That’s nothing inherent to any political system.
The breakdown of the US political landscape seemingly doesn’t have a lot to do with their version of federalism; most of Europe has far more explicitly central national governments and this hasn’t happened (lately). That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.
I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into
I would first like to have some solid evidence that these are caused by the confederal structure of the EU, and that they would be indeed solved by moving to a federal system. So far that seems to me like pure conjecture and also a huge gamble that could destroy the EU in the process.
That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.
In a centralized state, yes. But that is exactly what a confederacy isn’t. And the concrete example is that people in other states voted for Trump and thus directly interefered with the affairs of a state that didn’t. That isn’t at all comparable to a state internal problem.
I would first like to have some solid evidence that these are caused by the confederal structure of the EU,
I mean, they are self evident, no? A balkanized investment market exists because there’s no single structure to manage one large one. There’s no single EU military. No?
So far that seems to me like pure conjecture and also a huge gamble that could destroy the EU in the process.
I can’t be arsed to give any other than logical arguments such as the above. That’s why I said I’m happy to leave this as an ‘agree to disagree’ moment, because that’s really hard to prove one way or the other, and I consider this casual conversation not debate. So I’m happy to just say we have different perspectives here and call it a day. I’ve cited a few examples, as have you, I don’t think either position is stupid or poorly thought out, I just disagree with your conclusion.
But that is exactly what a confederacy isn’t. And the concrete example is that people in other states voted for Trump and thus directly interefered with the affairs of a state that didn’t.
Isn’t this just libertarianism?
That isn’t at all comparable to a state internal problem.
You’ll have to explain to me how. Whether you “zoom in” or “zoom out” the principle is the same, as far as I can tell.
The US was at most very briefly a confederacy, and the US civil war had little to do with that despite one side calling itself such.
The EU is an obvious successful modern example, and if you want historical examples, then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations lasted a millenium and despite sometimes nominally having an emporer it was practically a confederation.
And besides, ask some person living in a Democrat majority US state how they feel about the current Trump administration of their federal government interfering with their life and sending a militarized police occupation force into their cities?
I was referring to the articles of confederation, not the Confederacy, and how short lived it was was my point.
The EU as a governing body and not just a trade group really isn’t that old yet.
The needs of a modern global economy are completely different, though.
That said, I’m happy to just say we agree to disagree on whether this is broadly true or not.
I would like a response to my specific points though about trouble the EU is running into and how up fix those problems if not more federal power to the EU? How do you stop EU companies from jumping ship to the US for their large single investment market without a competing consolidated European one? How do we mount our own effective defense force without a central power to manage it?
This can still happen (and historically, as the birthplace of fascismhas, has happened) in European nations within said nations, though. That’s nothing inherent to any political system.
The breakdown of the US political landscape seemingly doesn’t have a lot to do with their version of federalism; most of Europe has far more explicitly central national governments and this hasn’t happened (lately). That kind of abuse of power can happen under literally any system from fascist to socialist.
I would first like to have some solid evidence that these are caused by the confederal structure of the EU, and that they would be indeed solved by moving to a federal system. So far that seems to me like pure conjecture and also a huge gamble that could destroy the EU in the process.
In a centralized state, yes. But that is exactly what a confederacy isn’t. And the concrete example is that people in other states voted for Trump and thus directly interefered with the affairs of a state that didn’t. That isn’t at all comparable to a state internal problem.
I mean, they are self evident, no? A balkanized investment market exists because there’s no single structure to manage one large one. There’s no single EU military. No?
I can’t be arsed to give any other than logical arguments such as the above. That’s why I said I’m happy to leave this as an ‘agree to disagree’ moment, because that’s really hard to prove one way or the other, and I consider this casual conversation not debate. So I’m happy to just say we have different perspectives here and call it a day. I’ve cited a few examples, as have you, I don’t think either position is stupid or poorly thought out, I just disagree with your conclusion.
Isn’t this just libertarianism?
You’ll have to explain to me how. Whether you “zoom in” or “zoom out” the principle is the same, as far as I can tell.