Federalism and state's rights

[JimC]

One reads a lot about a variety of conflicts between US federal authority, and the authority of individual states of the Union, and I'm interested as to the parallels that may exist in other countries.

In Australia, we have 5 states (Victoria, NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia) and two territories (Northern Territory and the Australian capital Territory). They all have a local parliament and government apparatus (the territories with somewhat less power than the states). There is a constant in politics here - endless bickering between the states and the federal authorities, exacerbated if there is a different political party ruling each.

For the US, one gets the impression that there is also a major continuing tension between the political power exerted by the federal government and the states. To me, it seems that "state rights" tends to be a slogan adopted by libertarian/conservative political elements (and I'm aware that, although there is overlap between the two, there are also significant differences), and that federal authority is more supported by those of a liberal/progressive tendency...

Sometimes I wonder whether the loss of efficiency mandated by the inevitable duplication and conflict between 2 disparate control structures is worth the benefit of more clearly local representation....

Discuss..

[Collector1337]

This is an easy one.

Which ever grants more individual liberty is better. Which usually is the more local one.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[pErvinalia]

My view of Australia's situation is that there probably could be a good argument made for ditching the State governments and making the local governments more powerful. That would devolve more power to the people and reduce the bureaucratic duplication going on between federal and state. I'm not sure how that sits with the concepts of our Federation. I think in the US case this would be impossible to do, as it is a union of states.

[cronus]

The American situation is complicated by the stockpile of weapons, and some desire to use them at local and national level.

[mistermack]

This is an easy one.

Which ever grants more individual liberty is better. Which usually is the more local one.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It works the other way too. A power vacuum gets filled by corrupt people.
You don't need government for corruption. Sometimes strong government destroys corruption.

Or have you never heard of the Mafia?

[Hermit]

In Australia, we have 5 states (Victoria, NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia)

When did Tasmania secede?

[pErvinalia]

They're the Pluto of states

[Pappa]

We don't really get this in the UK because the lawmaking powers of the devolved governments don't overlap with Westminster's powers, as far as I know.

[laklak]

They're not supposed to overlap here, but there's always been a bit of argument over where the lines are drawn. There was that unpleasantness in the 1860s, for instance.

[JimC]

In Australia, we have 5 states (Victoria, NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia)

When did Tasmania secede?

We always forget poor little Tassie...

[JimC]

We don't really get this in the UK because the lawmaking powers of the devolved governments don't overlap with Westminster's powers, as far as I know.

Here, in theory there isn't supposed to be much overlap, but in practice there is. For example, the states are in primary control of education, but the feds also mandate certain standards, and disperse extra funds.

But the main conflicts are usually about the purse strings...

[klr]

In Australia, we have 5 states (Victoria, NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia)

When did Tasmania secede?

We always forget poor little Tassie...

Back to school for you, Jim

[klr]

We don't really get this in the UK because the lawmaking powers of the devolved governments don't overlap with Westminster's powers, as far as I know.

Here, in theory there isn't supposed to be much overlap, but in practice there is. For example, the states are in primary control of education, but the feds also mandate certain standards, and disperse extra funds.

But the main conflicts are usually about the purse strings...

When are they not about money? Didn't Western Australia make noises about seceding, because it reckoned that it wasn't getting enough back for all its mineral wealth?

[piscator]

They're not supposed to overlap here, but there's always been a bit of argument over where the lines are drawn. There was that unpleasantness in the 1860s, for instance.

Yep, and States are not required to enforce Federal laws...

[Collector1337]

This is an easy one.

Which ever grants more individual liberty is better. Which usually is the more local one.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It works the other way too. A power vacuum gets filled by corrupt people.
You don't need government for corruption. Sometimes strong government destroys corruption.

Or have you never heard of the Mafia?

Yes, true enough. That is the nature of power vacuums.

But, that's assuming the local government wouldn't then compensate.