Federal vs. State Gov'ts Role in Creating Laws

[DragonMaci]

I was going to ramble on and on about the benefits of Federalism, but then I remembered you were asking about legislative power. Assuming a perfect government, there's no need for inferior legislatures - one will do you. But there are plenty of reasons to have inferior courts that operate in geographically smaller areas. Same with police. Imagine if there was exactly one court in the whole country. Yikes.

I agree that having local police and courts is beneficiary. As it stands NZ needs more local courts and police (too many areas are lacking even police and courts in a neighbouring area let alone the area). Local police means they can get to the crime scene quicker, and local courts means less money spent on transporting criminals, so local courts and police and definately a good thing.

[DavidOdden]

But there are plenty of reasons to have inferior courts that operate in geographically smaller areas. Same with police. Imagine if there was exactly one court in the whole country. Yikes.

I don't think it's hard to imagine; there is one national police in Norway, for example. What would be the problem with having a single police force, or a single criminal court, or civil court? I don't mean police station or courthouse, but one system.

[DragonMaci]

I don't think it's hard to imagine; there is one national police in Norway, for example. What would be the problem with having a single police force, or a single criminal court, or civil court? I don't mean police station or courthouse, but one system.

Qwertz can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he meant police station and courthouse.

[Seeker]

That abuse has to be prevented by allowing no government the power to do improper things (so it's not federalism alone). Let's assume as a basic principle that no governments may act except to protect against initiation of force. Now the question becomes, what work does federalism do; exactly how is there any limit on the abuse of power coming from spliting governmental functions between state and national government?

The question is, how do we implement the basic principle? At the outset, the federal government and state governments today all reflect the outrageous philosophical premises that predominate in our time. A first step would be to avail ourselves of federalism by congregating in a distinct geographic territory, say, Delaware, and form a majority of the population in support of Objectivist principles (I can see you shaking your head, but bear with me). Even carrying the weight of the federal government's burdens there is no question that the results of objective state law, in prosperity and human happiness, would be an example to the rest of the country. To actually see an Objectivist state in action would be a positive lesson that would spread, state-by-state, and ultimately to the federal government. That type of change would be impossible were the federal government to have the sole legislative power. The value of federalism here is as a means of achieving positive change.

Then the question would be, how do we preserve the basic principle? Here we seek a way to remedy and prevent negative change. In the same way that our model Objectivist state served as a positive lesson to the rest of the country, if another state, for whatever reason, were to begin to fall into error and implement contrary principles, the resulting disaster would serve as a useful reminder, and with the freedom of mobility its citizens could flee from danger until corrective action was taken. In fact the mere possibility of flight to other states would serve to check abuse. That form of curing undesirable change would not exist, were the federal government to have the sole legislative power.

That means that two governments get a whack at an accused, which is, I would say, an abuse of power.

...

My solution is to make it impossible to proliferate law at multiple levels, by not having multiple levels.

My solution is to create proper boundaries between federal and state power such that essentially the same offense would not be counted as two distinct offenses, i.e. to repeal a lot of federal laws. In cases where a single act was an offense against state and nation requiring separate prosecutions, this is a cost and consequence of the federal system; the flip side of the risk of double prosecution to the defendant is the possibility of double security to the victim in such cases, so I think the disaster is a bit overblown, though I certainly acknowledge that the argument against allowing any double prosecutions for the same act is significant; even so, the problem could be solved by a law designating the preferred plaintiff in various circumstances and by other procedural means, so I conclude that this fails as an argument against federalism as such.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Seeker

[DragonMaci]

The question is, how do we implement the basic principle? At the outset, the federal government and state governments today all reflect the outrageous philosophical premises that predominate in our time. A first step would be to avail ourselves of federalism by congregating in a distinct geographic territory, say, Delaware, and form a majority of the population in support of Objectivist principles (I can see you shaking your head, but bear with me). Even carrying the weight of the federal government's burdens there is no question that the results of objective state law, in prosperity and human happiness, would be an example to the rest of the country. To actually see an Objectivist state in action would be a positive lesson that would spread, state-by-state, and ultimately to the federal government. That type of change would be impossible were the federal government to have the sole legislative power. The value of federalism here is as a means of achieving positive change.

Then the question would be, how do we preserve the basic principle? Here we seek a way to remedy and prevent negative change. In the same way that our model Objectivist state served as a positive lesson to the rest of the country, if another state, for whatever reason, were to begin to fall into error and implement contrary principles, the resulting disaster would serve as a useful reminder, and with the freedom of mobility its citizens could flee from danger until corrective action was taken. In fact the mere possibility of flight to other states would serve to check abuse. That form of curing undesirable change would not exist, were the federal government to have the sole legislative power.

You don't need federalism to have that achieved. The different countries would serve that purpose.

[Seeker]

You don't need federalism to have that achieved. The different countries would serve that purpose.

I have to disagree. Other countries exist predominately with people whose language and culture vary much more significantly, and the freedom of mobility cannot be presupposed. As a means of preserving liberty within the nation, therefore, I am not persuaded that a resort to different countries would serve that purpose.

[DragonMaci]

I have to disagree. Other countries exist predominately with people whose language and culture vary much more significantly, and the freedom of mobility cannot be presupposed. As a means of preserving liberty within the nation, therefore, I am not persuaded that a resort to different countries would serve that purpose.

It would. If America and Australia went laissez faire, but then America reverted, a lot of people would move to Australia and the lesson would be learned the same way as the situation you mentioned.

[Seeker]

It would. If America and Australia went laissez faire, but then America reverted, a lot of people would move to Australia and the lesson would be learned the same way as the situation you mentioned.

First, your solution fails to provide a foreseeable means by which either would go laissez faire in the first place. Second, the relative difficulties attendant in a reliance on countries to provide the same safeguards as states within a federal system should be obvious. We need only consider the difference between citizens of a single state having to flee versus those of an entire country. As a practical matter, federalism's solution works relatively easily, whereas your solution does not. And why allow the whole of America to revert, when federalism's cure could have prevented the disease from reaching that far in the first place? Fortunately, it is your difficult solution that federalism renders unnecessary; it is hard to see how one could justify the burdens that your solution imposes, when the alternative of federalism exists.

[Qwertz]

Qwertz can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he meant police station and courthouse.

That I did.

Having a single court system is fine. Having a single court would be monstrously inefficient in a country as large as the US.

One thing I particularly don't like is coordinate federal-state jurisdiction under 28 USC 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). We call that "Federalism" today, but I don't think it is at all necessary and causes far more problems than it was meant to solve. Assuming a perfect, monolithic government, a single court system (e.g. the federal court system as a model) would be fine, but it would necessarily (like the federal system) be broken up into inferior courts with limited geographic jurisdiction but broad subject matter jurisdiction, while the superior courts will have broad geographic jurisdiction but narrow subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., limited to appellate jurisdiction). That makes sense as a management feature for a government that covers a large geographical area, and as a way of managing the binding effect of precedent.

~Q

[DragonMaci]

Having a single court system is fine. Having a single court would be monstrously inefficient in a country as large as the US.

It would be monstrously inefficient in a country as small as New Zealand.

[Qwertz]

Quite so. You might, might be able to get away with it in a place like Sealand. Someplace teensy. With very few people in it.

~Q

[DragonMaci]

Quite so. You might, might be able to get away with it in a place like Sealand. Someplace teensy. With very few people in it.

Or one of the city states. But even then it might be better to split the city into districts in terms of police and court jurisdiction.

[brandonk2009]

I don't think it's hard to imagine; there is one national police in Norway, for example. What would be the problem with having a single police force, or a single criminal court, or civil court? I don't mean police station or courthouse, but one system.

Take into consideration the geographical size and density of population in the United States. A single system may possibly work, but I think a more efficient system would be where there is a division of courts, police, fire control, ambulance, etc. on a local or regional, state, and federal level, similar to the system we have now. Smaller systems are easier to manage, are easier to audit (for corruption control), and are easier to change if need arises.

An interesting thing to think about would be funding. I think a good system of funding these systems is through an insurance-like policy where people have the option of paying a monthly fee for fire coverage, police protection, ambulance, etc. If they have an emergency and they do not have the coverage, they ought to be given the option of paying a one-time service charge. With this kind of funding system, what would be the differences between funding on local and federal level? On the federal level, funding is spread out all across America, meaning that coverage would be spread out across high density and low density areas making the services less expensive. This would be an advantage to the low density areas and might be able to make these services affordable to these areas.

By reducing the role state gov't plays you would strengthen the national gov't, but by funding and organizing the systems that protect our rights on a local or state level you still have a federal gov't with reduced power and control.

Edited August 27, 2008 by brandonk2009